Introduction
In his third book, known as the Critique of the Judgment , Immanuel Kant is categorical that no genius exists in the sciences. In the first part of this book, Kant discusses aesthetics and its four possible reflective aspects of judgment: the beautiful, the sublime, the agreeable, and the good. As such, Kant asserts that reflective judgment allows people to seek for the unknown universals about certain particulars. However, determinative judgment entails subsuming given particulars in the universe that are already known. Kant is categorical that a genius needs to use the logical faculty or reason to seek new universals as opposed to conforming to what is already known and making judgment that is based on such particulars (Li 2018). As such, Kant through his concept of the genius argues that no genius exists in the sciences but in fine arts; which forms the basis of this paper. The essay also offers reasons for Kant’s perspective and asserts that Kant is right.
Genius in relation to the critique of judgment
Kant defines genius as the naturally endowed talent that gives the rule to art. Therefore, talent is an innate productive faculty that an artist exhibits due to the natural universals (Haworth 2014). As such, genius entails the use of innate mental aptitude through which nature provides rules to art. Imperatively, the works of fine art are regarded as the works of a genius. It is evident from Kant’s perspective that genius entails having freedom that is derived from nature and where nature is the only source of any rules that may exist in practicing and disseminating facts.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Accordingly, Kant believes that sciences do not offer the opportunity for people to engage with nature and find new ways of enabling products. For instance, Kant asserts that fine art does not allow judgment based on the beauty of its product being derived from any form of rule but it judgment depends on the way through which the product has been made to be available (Haworth 2014). Kant is categorical that sciences unlike arts are subject to rules and known universals instead of seeking unknown universals. Further, sciences subject themselves to reflective judgment as opposed to determinative judgment. In this sense, Kant demonstrates that sciences and scientists do not seek to find freedom in their faculties but seek conformities in the existing ideas and products.
Kant states that genius is the only sufficient ground that makes things or products like fine art to exist. In other words, Kant believes that fine art is a product of genius because genius does not derive from any kind of rule. Further, genius entails originality and does not learn by following set rules, instructions and concepts developed by others. As such, Kant believes that originality is the main quality and identifiable mark of the genius (Merve 2012). Therefore, genius is the capability to create a product that is unique, singular and unexpected and does not base on any template.
No Genius in Sciences
It follows that based on these perceptions as advanced by Kant in his third book; sciences do not demonstrate genius because scientists follow set rules and formulas. As Kant observes, enlightenment entails man emerging from self-imposed nonage where nonage denotes to the inability for one to use their understanding without rules and guidance. According to Chu (2018), scientists need to see a problem in the existing scientific ideas and knowledge advanced by early scientists like Isaac Newton. Chu (2018) supports Kant’s perspective and believes that genius exists in sciences through mind breaking innovations and inventions. However, having the ability to see a problem and not conforming to the existing rules is the hallmark of genius in sciences. Genius will exist in sciences when they embrace originality and seek nature to offer determinative judgment as opposed to reflective judgment.
Again, this essay like Kant believes that by acting outside the rules, genius has both originality and freedom. While original nonsense will remain nonsense, the genius channels nature through hidden sources which science does not have the ability to produce (Matherne 2017). For instance, a scientist may learn to become Sir Isaac Newton and advance his concept. However, no one can ever learn to become Homer since Homer is a natural force. Therefore, judging beauty requires taste, and in producing beautiful products one must be a genius. As such, a genius will create institutions of learning for good minds that learn the rules that the genius develops. Imperatively, when students go beyond imitation to channeling nature in sciences, then they demonstrate originality and are better that their masters (Matherne 2017). For instance, architecture in science demonstrates the genius that can exist in sciences because it senses authenticity. Based on this assertions, it is evident that genius requires exercising freedoms and being rebellious to set rules and conformities which only exists in the works of arts; especially fine arts.
Conclusion
In its conclusion, this essay based on Kant’s Critique of Judgment is categorical that there is no genius in the sciences since sciences are bound by rules and conformities in their formulaic expressions and expectations. Genius entails originality and demonstrating that one channels nature in their faculties to see problems as opposed to providing solutions to the problems. Seeing problems is halfway to finding solutions and this is grounded in understanding and channeling nature. Therefore, genius exists in arts and not sciences.
References
Chu, C., 2018. Immanuel Kant, Innovation and the Brilliance of Problem “Seeing” Retrieved from https://medium.com/the-polymath-project/immanuel-kant-innovation-and-the-brilliance-of-problem-seeing-6ed0894220cd
Haworth, M., 2014. Genius is What Happens: Derrida and Kant on Genius, Rule-Following and the Event. The British Journal of Aesthetics , vol.54, No.3, pp.323-337. Retrieved from https://academic.oup.com/bjaesthetics/article/54/3/323/137805
Li, Z., 2018. A New Approach to Kant: A Confucian-Marxist’s Viewpoint . Singapore: Springer Education.
Matherne, S., 2017. Review: Thinking with Kant’s Critique of Judgment. Retrieved from https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/thinking-with-kants-critique-of-judgment/
Merve, E. 2012. Reconsidering the Kantian Concept of Genius through the Questions of Nature, Freedom and Creativity. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.632.9913&rep=rep1&type=pdf
