alt Hacker NewsI think you can lead yourself astray imagining that there’s a big difference between subjectivity and intersubjectivity. One is just a college educated term for the other.
More importantly, I think that enough time has passed that we can critique poor old Kant on this matter. When he says the taste has no interest in something what he is really implicitly describing is that taste is the province of rich people. If one has to strive or worry or self promote or anything like that, with regard to an aesthetic decision, it is easy to mark as tasteless. In most cases, the people with access to the kinds of habits that allow them to act in matters of aesthetic without interest are rich.
The main reason people drive themselves in circles, talking about taste and subjectivity, and college-educated words for subjectivity is because we don’t want to admit that it is bound up in class and upbringing. That and not the passage of time is why it is so hard to understand Kant on this matter. He’s describing a fiction that we agreed upon so that we didn’t have to talk about the influence of money.
Replies
You don't know anything about Kant. Neither do I, so that's two of us. But I will take a rigorous if flawed approach to understanding the world then a glib and dismissive one, that thoughtlessly appeals to common sense as a cheap attempt to win an argument that you don't actually want to engage with.
To be more blunt, you aren't saying anything at all. You are just posturing.
I think your analysis is interesting but I would argue it has more to do with status than money.
> In most cases, the people with access to the kinds of habits that allow them to act in matters of aesthetic without interest are rich.
This isn't true at all. There's a whole world of artisans and fine artists that range from middle class to broke, and they wouldn't be in that financial situation if they felt like compromising their point of view for money.