康德美学思想 英文

康德美学的基本观点康德美学是指德国哲学家康德所建立的美学理论，与英国哲学家伯克、蒙田等人的美学理论相比，康德的美学理论更为系统性和全面性。

康德从审美感受的本质、美的对象、美的标准等方面对美进行了深入的探讨，形成了具有自身特色的美学观点。

一、审美感受的本质康德认为，美是一种纯粹的感受，它不是来自于美的对象自身的性质，而是来自美的对象与我们的感官直接交流所引起的心理体验。

美是一种主体性的感受，是每个人独特的体验，因此，美没有客观的标准，只有主观的体验和评价。

二、美的对象康德认为，美的对象必须具有一定的特点和性质，它必须有一定的形式和结构，才能满足审美要求。

具体来说，美的对象必须是“纯粹的形式”，即没有任何实际用途和目的的对象，如纯音乐、纯舞蹈等。

因为这些对象没有实际用途，所以它们没有被任何具体目的所限制，可以表达出最丰富多彩的审美特征。

三、美的标准康德认为，美的标准取决于观者的审美感受和判断，没有任何客观的标准。

然而，康德也提出了一些一般性的标准，如美的对象必须具有内在的和谐美、统一美、对称美等美学特征，并且需要被特别的表现形式所呈现，如美的对象的形式需要具有纯粹性、整体性、明确性等特点。

四、艺术的价值康德认为，艺术是以表达美为最终目的的表现活动，艺术的价值取决于艺术品所表达的美的程度和深度。

艺术品不仅有自身的艺术价值，还有道德、历史、文化等方面的价值，因此，审美不仅是一种体验和评价，更是一种参与艺术的人对人类文明的平等交流。

综上所述，康德的美学观点强调了审美体验的独立性和主观性，表达出了一种强烈的“审美平等主义”思想，认为每个人的审美感受和价值都是平等的。

同时，康德的美学理论也对后来的美学研究和实践产生了广泛的影响和启示。

美学原理重点整理1.美学学科的名称是Aesthetica，是德国哲学家鲍姆加通在1750年首次提出来的。

2.西方美学的历是从柏拉图开始的，柏拉图式第一个从哲学思辨的高度讨论美学问题的哲学家。

3.康德将美学称之为“判断力的批判”。

4.先秦是中国古典美学发展的第一个黄金时代。

中国美学的真正起点是老子。

5.魏晋南北朝时期是中国古典美学发展的第二个黄金时代。

清代前期是中国美学史上第三个黄金时代。

6.近代美学的代表人物：梁启超、王国维、蔡元培。

7.王国维提出“境界说”；蔡元培提倡美育和艺术教育。

8.现代美学的代表人物：朱光潜、宗白华他们两人美学思想特点：第一，他们的美学思想都在不同程度上反映了西方美学从“主客二分”的思维模式走向“天人合一”的思想模式的趋势；第二，他们的美学思想都反映了中国近代以来寻找中西美学融合的趋势。

9.美学研究的对象是审美活动10.美学学科的性质：人文学科、理论学科、交叉学科（与艺术、心理学、语言学、人类学、神话学有密切的关系）、发展中的学科11.柏拉图的《大希庇阿斯篇》是一篇专门讨论“美”的对话录。

在这里柏拉图借苏格拉底之口提出了“美本身”的问题12.朱光潜提出“美在意象”。

在50年代的美学大讨论中，朱光潜解决了别人没有解决的两个理论问题：第一说明了艺术美和自然美的统一性；第二对美的社会性做了合理的解释，时代、民族、社会形态、阶级以及文化修养的差别会影响对美的认识，美的社会性不在自然物本身，而在于审美主体。

13.柳宗元提出“夫美不自美，因人而彰。

”，即不存在一种实体化的、外在于人的美。

我们可以从三个层面来解释：第一，美不是天生自在的，美离不开观赏者，而任何观赏者都带有创造性。

第二，没并不是对任何人都一样的，同一外物在不同人面前显示为不同的景象，生成不同的意蕴。

第三，美带有历史性。

在不同的历史时代，在不同的民族，在不同的阶段，美一方面有共同性，另一方面又有差异性。

14.“外师造化，中得心源”是中国绘画美学的纲领性命题，有唐代画家张璪提出。

美学原理重点整理1. 美学学科的名称是Aesthetica，是德国哲学家鲍姆加通在1750年首次提出来的。

2. 西方美学的历是从柏拉图开始的，柏拉图式第一个从哲学思辨的高度讨论美学问题的哲学家。

3. 康德将美学称之为“判断力的批判”。

4. 先秦是中国古典美学发展的第一个黄金时代。

中国美学的真正起点是老子。

5. 魏晋南北朝时期是中国古典美学发展的第二个黄金时代。

清代前期是中国美学史上第三个黄金时代。

6. 近代美学的代表人物：梁启超、王国维、蔡元培。

7. 王国维提出“境界说”；蔡元培提倡美育和艺术教育。

8. 现代美学的代表人物：朱光潜、宗白华他们两人美学思想特点：第一，他们的美学思想都在不同程度上反映了西方美学从“主客二分”的思维模式走向“天人合一”的思想模式的趋势；第二，他们的美学思想都反映了中国近代以来寻找中西美学融合的趋势。

9. 美学研究的对象是审美活动10. 美学学科的性质：人文学科、理论学科、交叉学科（与艺术、心理学、语言学、人类学、神话学有密切的关系）、发展中的学科11. 柏拉图的《大希庇阿斯篇》是一篇专门讨论“美”的对话录。

在这里柏拉图借苏格拉底之口提出了“美本身”的问题12. 朱光潜提出“美在意象”。

在50年代的美学大讨论中，朱光潜解决了别人没有解决的两个理论问题：第一说明了艺术美和自然美的统一性；第二对美的社会性做了合理的解释，时代、民族、社会形态、阶级以及文化修养的差别会影响对美的认识，美的社会性不在自然物本身，而在于审美主体。

13. 柳宗元提出“夫美不自美，因人而彰。

”，即不存在一种实体化的、外在于人的美。

我们可以从三个层面来解释：第一，美不是天生自在的，美离不开观赏者，而任何观赏者都带有创造性。

第二，没并不是对任何人都一样的，同一外物在不同人面前显示为不同的景象，生成不同的意蕴。

第三，美带有历史性。

在不同的历史时代，在不同的民族，在不同的阶段，美一方面有共同性，另一方面又有差异性。

西方近代哲学：(英modern western philoso-phy)西方近代哲学思想、理论的统称。

其特点是：以哲学表现出来的意识形态的斗争始终在西方资产阶级革命过程中进行着；资产阶级哲学家为资产阶级革命提供了哲学的理论根据；认识论成为哲学研究的主要内容。

在近代初期，文艺复兴运动以人与自然为研究的对象，以人文主义反对神道，以自然科学的方法继续了中世纪唯名论的科学研究传统。

其代表是但丁、彼特拉克、哥白尼(Nicolaus Copernicus,1473—1543)、伽利略。

英国F.培根的哲学揭露经院哲学的不切实际，提出以经验论与归纳法作为对自然进行研究的理论与方法。

法国笛卡儿则提出怀疑论，主张以“自我”作为知识的可靠基础，以清楚明白作为真理的标准，以上帝作为达到对自然界的实在性认识的保证，并在物理学上坚持唯物主义。

F.培根和笛卡儿开始了近代哲学中的经验论与唯理论的对立。

经验论随着英国革命的发展而改变了它的形式，英国霍布斯成为机械唯物主义的代表。

洛克集中研究了认识过程问题，并从经验论的认识原理出发，提出资产阶级的经济、政治、道德、宗教、教育等方面的理论。

贝克莱与休谟的哲学从18世纪的英国现实出发，提供了资产阶级掌权以后有利于巩固政权的哲学理论，它不是把经验看成客观事物的反映，而是看成主观的感知或知觉，从而调和了科学与宗教的矛盾，陷入唯心主义的经验论。

唯理论的发展随着各国情况的不同而有所不同，荷兰斯宾诺莎在荷兰的政治自由状况下，把唯理论发展为一种唯物主义体系，强调神或实体即自然界，而自然界是自行发展的(自因),并认为真正的自由在于遵照自然界的规律性与必然性。

德国莱布尼茨的单子论是一种客观唯心主义体系，认为单子的等级是一种精神的等级，而上帝是最高级的单子，它对世界作了“前定和谐”的安排。

经验论和唯理论作为西方近代哲学前期的两大派别，都是一种片面的哲学。

其原因主要在于当时的哲学家在认识论上的着重于经验或着重于理性，不理解人的认识从感性到理性的过程，而各自作了一些片断的研究。

康德美学思想评述
康德的美学思想是他哲学体系中的一部分，主要包括他关于审美经验、审美判断和美的概念等方面的思考。

康德认为美是一种纯粹主观的经验，即美并非存在于外部物体本身，而是由个体的感知和情感创造出来的。

他强调审美经验是一种无目的的快乐，纯粹基于感知的形式和结构。

其次，康德提出了"美的判断力"的概念，即我们运用美的判断力来作出审美判断。

他认为美的判断力基于一般性的可共享的规范，其判断不是基于个人的偏好，而是基于普遍可认同的美的特征。

康德还提出了"美的意象"的概念，即美的对象是通过感性经验中的形象呈现出来的。

他认为，美的意象要具备"终极性"，即其没有任何自然的目的或实用价值，只存在于纯粹的审美感受中。

然而，康德的美学思想也存在一些问题。

首先，他的重点放在了主观的审美经验和个体的判断力上，忽视了美的客观属性和外部物体自身的特征。

其次，他的美的判断力建立在一般性规范的基础上，但这种规范的确定性和普遍性难以界定和证明。

康德的美学思想对后来的美学理论产生了重大影响，尤其是在形式美学和审美伦理方面。

然而，他的思想也面临一些质疑和批评，需要进一步的探讨和发展。

康德美学的自然与自由观念伊曼努尔·康德是德国启蒙时期的著名哲学家，他的美学思想对后世影响深远。

本文将围绕康德美学的核心观念——自然与自由，展开详细探讨，以期揭示康德美学中的这一重要主题。

一、康德美学中的自然观念在康德的美学理论中，自然被视为一种客观存在的审美对象。

康德认为，自然美具有普遍性和必然性，它是人类审美判断的基石。

自然美的特点在于其形式的合目的性，即自然事物的形式与人的审美观念相契合。

1.自然美的普遍性康德认为，自然美是普遍存在的，因为它是上帝赋予人类的礼物。

自然美的普遍性体现在人们对自然美的共同感受上。

不论地域、文化、年龄的差异，人们对自然美的欣赏具有一致性。

2.自然美的必然性自然美的必然性源于其形式的合目的性。

康德认为，自然事物的形式符合人类审美观念中的目的性，这种目的性是先验的，即人类在审美过程中先天具有的。

因此，人们对自然美的欣赏具有必然性。

3.自然美的合目的性自然美的合目的性体现在自然事物的形式与人的审美观念的契合。

康德认为，自然美的形式是多样性和统一性的结合，这种形式能够满足人类审美心理的需求。

二、康德美学中的自由观念在康德的美学理论中，自由是审美判断的核心要素。

康德认为，审美判断是一种自由的活动，它不受任何外在目的和规律的限制。

1.自由的审美判断康德认为，审美判断是一种自由的活动，因为它是基于主体的情感而非概念。

在审美过程中，主体可以自由地感受和评价审美对象，不受任何外在目的和规律的约束。

2.自由的审美理念康德提出了“自由美”的概念，以区别于“自然美”。

自由美是指那些不具有客观目的性，仅以形式引发主体审美愉悦的事物。

自由美体现了主体在审美过程中的自由创造和想象。

3.自由与道德的关系康德认为，审美自由与道德自由具有内在联系。

在审美活动中，主体通过自由地感受和评价审美对象，培养了自己的道德情感。

审美自由是道德自由的先导，有助于人们形成道德自律。

三、自然与自由的统一在康德美学中，自然与自由并非相互对立，而是相互联系、相互渗透的。

西方美学史：康德美学（3）——论天才和艺术3．天才和艺术《判断力批判》好像只涉及欣赏而不涉及创造，但是事实上这部书只有前部分，即关于美与崇高的分析部分涉及欣赏，而后部分，即关于天才和艺术的部分，却着重地讨论了艺术创造。

（a）艺术的特征：艺术与游戏在着手讨论艺术时，康德首先指出艺术与自然的分别。

“艺术有别于自然，正如制作有别于一般动作；艺术产品或结果有别于自然的产品或结果，正如作品有别于作用或效果。

”（第四三节）这就是说；艺术须有所创作，须产生作品，而自然只是在动作（在运动中发展变化）中发生作用。

艺术创作须通过自由意志和理性。

所以康德接着替艺术下定义说，“照理，我们只应把通过自由，即通过以理性为活动基础的意志活动的创造叫做艺术”。

艺术创造不能像蜂子营巢那样完全出于本能。

在创造艺术作品时，艺术家心中”须先悬想一个目的，然后按照这个目的去想作品的形式”。

从此可见，艺术创造与单纯的审美活动不同，不能不涉及意志、目的乃至于概念。

其次，康德指出艺术与科学两种活动的分别。

“艺术作为人的技术本领，也有别于科学，正如能有别于知，实践功能有别于认识功能，技术有别于理论”。

因此，在艺术创作中，“知”不一定就保证“能”，首要的还是技术训练方面的本领。

但是康德同时也指出“能”却要有”知”为基础。

“对于美的艺术来说，要达到高度完美，就需要大量的科学知识，例如须熟悉古代语言、古典作家以及历史、考古学等等”（第四四节），从此可见，康德所理解的“知识”限于书本知识，他没有考虑到实际生活。

第三，康德指出艺术与手工艺的分别。

这牵涉到艺术与游戏问题，值得特别注意，康德的原话是这样：艺术还有别于手工艺，艺术是自由的，手工艺也可以叫做挣报酬的艺术。

人们把艺术看作仿佛是一种游戏，这是本身就愉快的一种事情，达到了这一点，就算是符合目的：手工艺却是一种劳动（工作），这是本身就不愉快（痛苦）的一种事情，只有通过它的效果（例如报酬），它才有些吸引力，因而它是被强迫的。

经典美学1‎2讲绪论：什么是美学‎一、美学作为一‎门独立学科‎的诞生♦（一）美学思想一‎直存在♦1.中国古代：美学思想与‎各种艺术实‎践交织在一‎起。

♦2.西方：西方古代文‎明中造就蕴‎涵着美学的‎精神。

♦“Aesth‎e tic”于1735‎年美学之父‎鲍姆嘉通提‎出以前，美学思想就‎一直存在。

♦（二）美学作为独‎立学科诞生‎之前♦1.理性认识♦理性认识以‎事物的本质‎规律为认识‎对象，是对事物的‎内在联系的‎认识，具有抽象性‎、间接性、普遍性。

♦理性认识的‎三种形式有‎：慨念——对事物本质‎属性的概括‎；判断——在概念的基‎础上对事物‎的各种关系‎进行区分、识别；推理——由一个已知‎的判断推出‎昂一个判断‎。

♦2.伦理学（ethic‎s）♦关于道德的‎科学，又称道德学‎、道德哲学。

古希腊哲学‎家亚里士多‎德最先赋予‎其伦理和德‎行的含义，所著《尼各马可伦‎理学》一书为西方‎最早的伦理‎学专著。

♦3.美学作为独‎立学科的提‎出♦美学作为独‎立学科最早‎由德国古典‎哲学家鲍姆‎嘉通（Baumg‎a rten‎)提出： Aesth‎e tic 在《关于诗的哲‎学沉思录》中首次提出‎鲍姆嘉通提‎出“Aesth‎e tic”是为了与“理性知识”相对而言。

♦鲍姆嘉通：美学之父二、美学是什么‎？♦美学是什么‎主要从美学‎的研究对象‎和范围来鉴‎定：♦1.鲍姆嘉通：美学就是研‎究美、研究感性认‎识的完善。

♦2.黑格尔“美学是研究‎美的艺术的‎哲学。

”♦3.车尔尼雪夫‎斯基“美是生活”♦美是对现实‎生活的模仿‎和反映♦4.近代美学：审美心理学‎♦注重从审美‎主体的角度‎来看♦注重研究的‎是审美主体‎在审美活动‎中的心里活‎动。

♦例：立普斯：“移情说”♦布洛：“心理距离说‎”♦“在审美活动‎中要与对象‎保持一定的‎距离。

”（心理距离）♦4.中国：♦注重研究人‎对现实的审‎美关系即审美主体‎与审美客体‎之间的关系‎美学：研究审美活‎动中的客体‎、主体以及主‎客体之间的‎关系，包括美、美感、美的创造和‎美育。

收稿日期:2001-03-19作者简介:汪涛(1974-　),女,江西南昌人,广州中天科技有限公司翻译,硕士,从事文艺学、美学研究。

2001年8月第22卷第4期湛江师范学院学报JOURNA L OF ZH AN J I ANG NORMA L C O LLEGEAug 1,2001V ol 122　NO 14唯美主义与康德美学———“审美无利害性”概念的确立与“为艺术而艺术”命题的提出汪 涛(中天科技有限公司,广东广州510075)摘　要:康德美学所提出的“审美无利害性”概念在理论上给当时的文学艺术极大的启发,文学艺术转向自身的价值追求,开创了西方现代批评的先锋。

文中通过分析康德对审美无利害性的阐释,以及唯美主义思潮是如何吸收康德美学思想、进而提出“艺术无功利”和“为艺术而艺术”等惊世骇俗的理论口号,并厘清它与康德美学的关系,从而更准确地把握这一文艺思潮的历史意义,及其在文学史中应有的地位。

关键词:康德;《判断力批判》;“无利害性”;想象力;唯美主义中图分类号:B83-02 文献标识码:A 文章编号:1006-4702(2001)04-0042-04 唯美主义一词的英文为aestheticism ,由aesthetic(美学)一词演变而来,近年来又有人将其译作“审美主义”或“美学主义”。

唯美主义是从审美论出发看待文学艺术的观念和方法之一,它的基本信念是:文学艺术的基本属性是审美性,文学艺术的根本价值是审美价值,文学艺术的任务就是创造美。

西方任何文艺思潮的背后必定有其哲学美学理论来源,唯美主义也不例外。

它的产生除了其特定的历史背景外,更主要的是来自康德美学的直接影响。

康德在他的美学著作《判断力批判》中提出“审美不涉利害”的命题,是美学发展史上一次划时代的革命。

“审美无利害性”这一命题直接引发了唯美主义文艺思想的产生,并且作为新的美学理论基石影响了现代美学的诸多流派。

在一些当代美学家看来,“审美无利害性”概念是传统美学与现代美学的分水岭,就象美国著名美学家杰罗姆・斯托本尼兹所说的那样: “除非我们能理解‘无利害性’这个概念,否则我们就无法理解现代美学理论。

康德的美学康德是一个德国哲学家，在西方哲学史上被视为重要的思想家之一。

康德的美学是他哲学体系的重要组成部分，他提出了一套叫做“审美理论”的观点，这个理论对后来的美学思想产生了很大的影响。

康德的审美理论重要的思想可以概括为以下几点：1.美感的主观性康德认为美感是一种主观的经验，与客观世界没有直接联系。

美是一个人内心的直觉。

虽然美是主观的，但它具有一定的普遍性，不同的人也会对同一个物体产生相似的感受。

2.审美经验的多元化康德认为，审美经验不仅仅局限于艺术品，包括自然景观、音乐、文学等等都可以激发美感。

任何引起人类情感反应的物体都可以被视为具有美的价值。

3.审美品味的培养康德认为美感是需要培养和提高的。

一些人能够发现美，而有些人却不行。

康德还认为，人类感性需要经由训练才能达到更高层次，这便就引伸了人类的赏析能力。

培养良好审美品味的方式不是通过熟记规则或技巧，而是不断地欣赏和反思。

4.美的特质康德将“美”解释为一种追求纯粹感受的过程，包括秩序、谓词、对称和整体性等元素。

这种纯感官的经验是不带任何目的性的，是一种伴随着快感时的感受。

5.艺术的价值康德认为，艺术的价值不仅仅在于它的美感，而且在于它所展示的“形式”。

艺术家的创作是一种自由的艺术行为，是创造出形式的过程。

因此，艺术不仅仅有美的价值，还有内在的、形式上的价值。

康德审美理论的独立性和确立地位作为一个体系，激发了无数人对于艺术创造的热情，促进了艺术的繁荣和发展。

康德对于审美现象的独特解读，使得人们对于对外界的感受变得更加广阔和深刻，也在一定程度上拓宽了人类对于哲学的发展和探究之路。

总之，康德的美学思想提出了很多经典的哲学问题，包括美的本质和价值、审美体验的本质和作用等等。

康德的审美理论不止被视为美学思想的里程碑，也被广泛应用于美学教育、文化研究等领域。

无论是学者还是艺术家都在其思想中汲取启示，探索着“美”的本质，为人类文明的发展做出了贡献。

康德：什么是启蒙运动［英文版］What Is Enlightenment?By Immanuel KantThe 18th-century German philosopher Immanuel Kant published his influential work The Critique of Pure Reason in 1781. Three years later, he expanded on his study of the modes of thinking with an essay entitled "What is Enlightenment?" In this 1784 essay, Kant challenged readers to "dare to know," arguing that it was not only a civic but also a moral duty to exercise the fundamental freedoms of thought and expression.Enlightenment is man’s leaving his self-caused immaturity. Immaturity is the incapacity to use one's intelligence without the guidance of another. Such immaturity is self-caused if it is not caused by lack of intelligence, but by lack of determination and courage to use one's intelligence without being guided by another. Sapere Aude! [Dare to know!] Have the courage to use your own intelligence! is therefore the motto of the enlightenment.Through laziness and cowardice a large part of mankind, even after nature has freed them from alien guidance, gladly remain immature. It is because of laziness and cowardice that it is so easy for others to usurp the role of guardians. It is so comfortable to be a minor! If I have a book which provides meaning for me, a pastor who has conscience for me, a doctorwho will judge my diet for me and so on, then I do not need to exert myself. I do not have any need to think; if I can pay, others will take over the tedious job for me. The guardians who have kindly undertaken the supervision will see to it that by far the largest part of mankind, including the entire "beautiful sex," should consider the step into maturity, not only as difficult but as very dangerous.After having made their domestic animals dumb and having carefully prevented these quiet creatures from daring to take any step beyond the lead-strings to which they have fastened them, these guardians then show them the danger which threatens them, should they attempt to walk alone. Now this danger is not really so very great; for they would presumably learn to walk after some stumbling. However, an example of this kind intimidates and frightens people out of all further attempts.It is difficult for the isolated individual to work himself out of the immaturity which has become almost natural for him. He has even become fond of it and for the time being is incapable of employing his own intelligence, because he has never been allowed to make the attempt. Statutes and formulas, these mechanical tools of a serviceable use, or rather misuse, of his natural faculties, are the ankle-chains of a continuous immaturity. Whoever threw it off would make an uncertain jump over the smallest trench because he is not accustomed to such free movement. Therefore there are only a few who have pursued a firm path and have succeeded in escaping from immaturity by their own cultivation of themind.But it is more nearly possible for a public to enlighten itself: this is even inescapable if only the public is given its freedom. For there will always be some people who think for themselves, even among the self-appointed guardians of the great mass who, after having thrown off the yoke of immaturity themselves, will spread about them the spirit of a reasonable estimate of their own value and of the need for every man to think for himself. It is strange that the very public, which had previously been put under this yoke by the guardians, forces the guardians thereafter to keep it there if it is stirred up by a few of its guardians who are themselves incapable of all enlightenment. It is thus very harmful to plant prejudices, because they come back to plague those very people who themselves (or whose predecessors) have been the originators of these prejudices. Therefore a public can only arrive at enlightenment slowly. Through revolution, the abandonment of personal despotism may be engendered and the end of profit-seeking and domineering oppression may occur, but never a true reform of the state of mind. Instead, new prejudices, just like the old ones, will serve as the guiding reins of the great, unthinking mass.All that is required for this enlightenment is freedom; and particularly the least harmful of all that may be called freedom, namely, the freedom for man to make public use of his reason in all matters. But I hear people clamor on all sides: Don't argue! The officer says: Don't argue, drill! The tax collector: Don't argue, pay! The pastor: Don't argue, believe!(Only a single lord in the world says: Argue, as much as you want to and about what you please, but obey!) Here we have restrictions on freedom everywhere. Which restriction is hampering enlightenment, and which does not, or even promotes it? I answer: The public use of a man's reason must be free at all times, and this alone can bring enlightenment among men: while the private use of a man's reason may often be restricted rather narrowly without thereby unduly hampering the progress of enlightenment.I mean by the public use of one's reason, the use which a scholar makes of it before the entire reading public. Private use I call the use which he may make of this reason in a civic post or office. For some affairs which are in the interest of the commonwealth a certain mechanism is necessary through which some members of the commonwealth must remain purely passive in order that an artificial agreement with the government for the public good be maintained or so that at least the destruction of the good be prevented. In such a situation it is not permitted to argue; one must obey. But in so far as this unit of the machine considers himself as a member of the entire commonwealth, in fact even of world society; in other words, he considers himself in the quality of a scholar who is addressing the true public through his writing, he may indeed argue without the affairs suffering for which he is employed partly as a passive member. Thus it would be very harmful if an officer who, given an order by his superior, should start, while in the service, to argue concerning the utility or appropriateness of that command. He must obey, but he cannot equitably be prevented frommaking observations as a scholar concerning the mistakes in the military service nor from submitting these to the public for its judgment. The citizen cannot refuse to pay the taxes imposed upon him. Indeed, a rash criticism of such taxes, if they are the ones to be paid by him, may be punished as a scandal which might cause general resistance. But the same man does not act contrary to the duty of a citizen if, as a scholar, he utters publicly his thoughts against the undesirability or even the injustice of such taxes. Likewise a clergyman is obliged to teach his pupils and his congregation according to the doctrine of the church which he serves, for he has been accepted on that condition. But as a scholar, he has full freedom, in fact, even the obligation, to communicate to the public all his diligently examined and well-intentioned thoughts concerning erroneous points in that doctrine and concerning proposals regarding the better institution of religious and ecclesiastical matters. There is nothing in this for which the conscience could be blamed. For what he teaches according to his office as one authorized by the church, he presents as something in regard to which he has no latitude to teach according to his own preference.… He will say: Our church teaches this or that, these are the proofs which are employed for it. In this way he derives all possible practical benefit for his congregation from rules which he would not himself subscribe to with full conviction. But he may nevertheless undertake the presentation of these rules because it is not entirely inconceivable that truth may be contained in them. In any case, there is nothing directly contrary to inner religion to be found in such doctrines. For, should he believe that the latter was not the case he could notadminister his office in good conscience; he would have to resign it. Therefore the use which an employed teacher makes of his reason before his congregation is merely a private use since such a gathering is always only domestic, no matter how large. As a priest (a member of an organization) he is not free and ought not to be, since he is executing someone else's mandate. On the other hand, the scholar speaking through his writings to the true public which is the world, like the clergyman making public use of his reason, enjoys an unlimited freedom to employ his own reason and to speak in his own person. For to suggest that the guardians of the people in spiritual matters should always be immature minors is a nonsense which would mean perpetuating forever existing nonsense.But should a society of clergymen, for instance an ecclesiastical assembly, be entitled to commit itself by oath to a certain unalterable doctrine in order to perpetuate an endless guardianship over each of its members and through them over the people? I answer that this is quite inconceivable. Such a contract which would be concluded in order to keep humanity forever from all further enlightenment is absolutely impossible, even should it be confirmed by the highest authority through parliaments and the most solemn peace treaties. An age cannot conclude a pact and take an oath upon it to commit the succeeding age to a situation in which it would be impossible for the latter to enlarge even its most important knowledge, to eliminate error and altogether to progress in enlightenment. Such a thing would be a crime against human nature, the original destiny of which consistsin such progress. Succeeding generations are entirely justified in discarding such decisions as unauthorized and criminal. The touchstone of all this to be agreed upon as a law for people is to be found in the question whether a people could impose such a law upon itself. Now it might be possible to introduce a certain order for a definite short period as if in anticipation of a better order. This would be true if one permitted at the same time each citizen and especially the clergyman to make his criticisms in his quality as a scholar.… In the meantime, the provisional order might continue until the insight into the particular matter in hand has publicly progressed to the point where through a combination of voices (although not, perhaps, of all) a proposal may be brought to the crown. Thus those congregations would be protected which had agreed to (a changed religious institution) according to their own ideas and better understanding, without hindering those who desired to allow the old institutions to continue.…A man may postpone for himself, but only for a short time, enlightening himself regarding what he ought to know. But to resign from such enlightenment altogether either for his own person or even more for his descendants means to violate and to trample underfoot the sacred rights of mankind. Whatever a people may not decide for themselves, a monarch may even less decide for the people, for his legislative reputation rests upon his uniting the entire people's will in his own. If the monarch will only see to it that every true or imagined reform (of religion) fits in with the civil order, he had best let his subjects do what they consider necessary forthe sake of their salvation; that is not his affair. His only concern is to prevent one subject from hindering another by force, to work according to each subject's best ability to determine and to promote his salvation. In fact, it detracts from his majesty if he interferes in such matters and subjects to governmental supervision the writings by which his subjects seek to clarify their ideas (concerning religion). This is true whether he does it from his own highest insight, for in this case he exposes himself to the reproach: Caesar non est supra grammaticos [Caesar is not above the laws of grammar]; it is even more true when he debases his highest power to support the spiritual despotism of some tyrants in his state against the rest of his subjects.The question may now be put: Do we live at present in an enlightened age? The answer is: No, but in an age of enlightenment. Much still prevents men from being placed in a position or even being placed into position to use their own minds securely and well in matters of religion. But we do have very definite indications that this field of endeavor is being opened up for men to work freely and reduce gradually the hindrances preventing a general enlightenment and an escape from self-caused immaturity. In this sense, this age is the age of enlightenment and the age of(the Great)[Frederick II of].A prince should not consider it beneath him to declare that he believes it to be his duty not to prescribe anything to his subjects in matters of religion but to leave to them complete freedom in such things. In other words, a princewho refuses the conceited title of being "tolerant," is himself enlightened. He deserves to be praised by his grateful contemporaries and descendants as the man who first freed humankind of immaturity, at least as far as the government is concerned and who permitted everyone to use his own reason in all matters of conscience. Under his rule, venerable clergymen could, regardless of their official duty, set forth their opinions and views even though they differ from the accepted doctrine here and there; they could do so in the quality of scholars, freely and publicly. The same holds even more true of every other person who is not thus restricted by official duty. This spirit of freedom is spreading even outside (the country ofthe Great) to places where it has to struggle with the external hindrances imposed by a government which misunderstands its own position. For an example is illuminating them which shows that such freedom (public discussion) need not cause the slightest worry regarding public security and the unity of the commonwealth. Men raise themselves by and by out of backwardness if one does not purposely invent artifices to keep them down.I have emphasized the main point of enlightenment, that is of man's release from his self-caused immaturity, primarily in matters of religion. I have done this because our rulers have no interest in playing the guardian of their subjects in matters of arts and sciences. Furthermore immaturity in matters of religion is not only most noxious but also most dishonorable. But the point of view of a head of state who favors freedom in the arts and sciences goes even farther; for he understands that there is no danger in legislation permitting his subjectsto make public use of their own reason and to submit publicly their thoughts regarding a better framing of such laws together with a frank criticism of existing legislation. We have a shining example of this; no prince excels him whom we admire. Only he who is himself enlightened does not fear spectres when he at the same time has a well-disciplined army at his disposal as a guarantee of public peace. Only he can say what (the ruler of a)dare not say: Argue as much as you want and about whatever you want but obey! Thus we see here as elsewhere an unexpected turn in human affairs just as we observe that almost everything therein is paradoxical. A great degree of civic freedom seems to be advantageous for the freedom of the spirit of the people and yet it establishes impassable limits. A lesser degree of such civic freedom provides additional space in which the spirit of a people can develop to its full capacity. Therefore nature has cherished, within its hard shell, the germ of the inclination and need for free thought. This free thought gradually acts upon the mind of the people and they gradually become more capable of acting in freedom. Eventually, the government is also influenced by this free thought and thereby it treats man, who is now more than a machine, according to his dignity.。

康德的美学思想浅析吴景滨(东北大学文法学院科技哲学 1200026)摘要:康德美学在西方美学史上占有非常重要的地位,是西方近代美学向现当代美学演变的转折点。

康德美学对审美判断力的分析就是要在知性与理性之间架起一座桥梁,是对美学的独特洞察,从而奠定了康德美学在历史上的地位,但同时也使康德美学带有了历史局限性,又是对美学的一次盲视。

认真研究学习康德美学,将为我们理解西方现当代美学的内涵、走向,以及我国的现代美学,提供重要启示。

关键词:康德美学;判断力;康德(1724-1804)：生于1724年4月22日，1740年入哥尼斯贝格大学。

从1746年起任家庭教师4年。

1755年完成大学学业，取得编外讲师资格，任讲师15年。

在此期间康德作为教师和著作家，声望日隆。

除讲授物理学和数学外，还讲授逻辑学、形而上学、道德哲学、火器和筑城学、自然地理等。

18世纪60年代，这一时期的主要著作有：《关于自然神学和道德的原则的明确性研究》（1764）、《把负数概念引进于哲学中的尝试》（1763）、《上帝存在的论证的唯一可能的根源》（1763）。

所著《视灵者的幻梦》（1766）检验了有关精神世界的全部观点。

1770年被任命为逻辑和形而上学教授。

同年发表《论感觉界和理智界的形式和原则》。

从1781年开始，9年内出版了一系列涉及广阔领域的有独创性的伟大著作，短期内带来了一场哲学思想上的革命。

如《纯粹理性批判》（1781）、《实践理性批判》（1788）、《判断力批判》（1790）。

1793年《在理性范围内的宗教》出版后被指控为滥用哲学，歪曲并蔑视基督教的基本教义；于是政府要求康德不得在讲课和著述中再谈论宗教问题。

但1797年国王死后，他又在最后一篇重要论文《学院之争》（1798）中重新论及这一问题。

《从自然科学最高原理到物理学的过渡》本来可能成为康德哲学的重要补充，但此书未能完成。

1804年2月12日病逝。

康德在对美的分析论中所采用的逻辑是从质到量,再到主观合目的性,最后以共通感为普遍认同的条件,完成了他的审美判断的纯主观判断的论断。

Advances in Philosophy 哲学进展, 2023, 12(2), 341-345 Published Online February 2023 in Hans. https:///journal/acpp https:///10.12677/acpp.2023.122060康德美学审美自律对中国美学的当代价值杨 静北京外国语大学中文学院，北京收稿日期：2023年1月6日；录用日期：2023年1月26日；发布日期：2023年2月7日摘要 审美自律性作为西方现代美学的核心概念，其确立也经历了一个过程。

从十八世纪到二十世纪，在康德的基础上同时受时代思想的影响，审美自律的观念从主观审美态度到客观的审美形式等不同层面获得了充分的发展，并在二十世纪达到了一种理论自觉。

真正在哲学意义上给予美学以独立地位的是康德。

康德审美无利害性对中国美学产生巨大影响并至今对于当代中国文艺学美学重构有重要意义。

李泽厚先生在批判继承康德美学的基础上提出的“主体性实践哲学”和“人类本体论美学”都不同程度地推动着中国当代马克思主义美学的主体论转向、审美论转向、价值论转向。

其中审美论转向具体体现在三个层面：审美反映论、审美情感论和审美意识形态论；价值论转向则体现在两个层面：实践价值论和审美自由论。

关键词审美自律性，中国，美学The Contemporary Value of Kant’s Aesthetic Self-Discipline to Chinese AestheticsJing YangSchool of Chinese Studies, Beijing Foreign Studies University, Beijing Received: Jan. 6th , 2023; accepted: Jan. 26th , 2023; published: Feb. 7th , 2023AbstractAs the core concept of Western modern aesthetics, aesthetic autonomy has experienced a process of establishment. From the 18th century to the 20th century, on the basis of Kant and influenced by the thoughts of The Times, the concept of aesthetic self-discipline has been fully developed from the subjective aesthetic attitude to the objective aesthetic form and reached a kind of theo-retical consciousness in the 20th century. It was Kant who really gave aesthetics an independent status in the philosophical sense. Kant’s aesthetic disinterest has a great influence on Chinese aes-杨静thetics and is of great significance to the aesthetic reconstruction of contemporary Chinese litera-ture and art. On the basis of criticizing and inheriting Kantian aesthetics, Mr. Li Zehou put forward “subjective practical philosophy” and “human ontological aesthetics”, which have promoted the subjectivism, esthetic theory and axiology of contemporary Chinese Marxist aesthetics to varying degrees. The transformation of aesthetic theory is embodied in three aspects: aesthetic reflection theory, aesthetic emotion theory and aesthetic ideology theory; The turn of axiology is embodied in two aspects: practical axiology and aesthetic freedom.KeywordsSelf-Discipline, Chinese, Aesthetics Array Copyright © 2023 by author(s) and Hans Publishers Inc.This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY 4.0)./licenses/by/4.0/1. 审美自律性自律，来源于希腊语Heautos (自我)和Nomos (法律)，“自律”字面上来理解即是自我立法的能力，也就是自我统治(self-govern)或者自我约束(self-discipline)。

康德美学的⼏个关键点康德美学的⼏个关键词（审美判断⼒部分）对于初涉康德美学的⼈来说，我认为要理解康德的美学思想，应该从以下关键词的理解开始。

知性和理性先验原则想象⼒审美判断⽆概念的普遍有效性共同感纯粹美崇⾼美美感⼆律背反美的艺术天才和灵感⼀知性和理性在哲学的⼀般领地中，康德指出：通过⾃然概念的⽴法是由知性进⾏的并且是理论上的。

通过⾃由概念的⽴法是由理性造成的并且只是实践性的，不过只有在实践中理性才是⽴法性的。

（第8页）⾼层能⼒系统表从上可知，康德的知性是获得知识理论的⼀种凭借⽅式，也可以说是⼀种知识，理论知识的获得是凭借书本知识，⽽不是实践。

在康德的《纯粹理性批判中》知性在此发挥着巨⼤的作⽤，他是⼀种从知识到知识的认识，从理论到理论的深化，⽽与⼈的实践脱离。

理性，指的是实践理性，在《实践理性批判》中发挥作⽤，指导⼈的实践道德和⾃由意志，与《纯粹理性批判》的理性区别开来，《纯粹理性批判》的理性和知性的含义相同，是⼈的知识认识能⼒。

朱光潜认为《纯粹理性批判》是研究形⽽上学的知识，我⼀直认为学术上的形⽽上学（不是马克思的静⽌、⽚⾯、绝对形⽽上学）指的是对终极世界的探求，是⼈的道德精神⽅⾯的，只可体会，不可认识的，研究的是宇宙的⽆限，从⽽感知⼈⾃⾝的有限性。

怎么解释，是我认识的错误吗？朱光潜《西⽅美学史》：在他的三⼤批判之中，第⼀部《纯粹理性批判》，实际上就是⼀般所谓哲学或形⽽上学，专研究知的功能，推求⼈类知识在什么条件之下才是可能的；第⼆部《实践理性批判》，实际上就是⼀般所谓伦理学，专研究意志的功能，研究⼈凭什么最⾼原则去指导道德⾏为。

第三部《判断⼒批判》，前半实际上就是⼀般所谓美学，后半是⽬的论，专研究情感(快感或不快感)的功能，寻求⼈⼼在什么条件之下才感觉事物美(美学)和完善(⽬的论)。

这三⼤批判合在⼀起就组成了⼀套完整的体系。

（第345页）梯利的《西⽅哲学史》：知性论：知性不能独⾃直观或知觉任何事物，感觉不能独⾃思维任何事物。