عنوان مقاله [English]
Problem statement: One of the most influential and, of course, controversial theories of Kant in aesthetics, expressed in his critique of judgment, is that he considers aesthetic judgment to be both subjective and universally valid. At the same time, Kant emphasizes that there is a fundamental difference between the beautiful and the agreeable. The question is how it can be subjective and also universally valid? And whether the difference between the beautiful and agreeable can be proved empirically?
Research objective: The purpose of this study is specifically to examine these questions from the perspective of contemporary thinkers in experimental aesthetics. Some thinkers of this school have criticized the general validity of the aesthetic judgment and the difference between the beautiful and the agreeable, and have tried to refute it experimentally. At the same time, Nick Zangwill, a well-known critic of the field of aesthetics in Kant’s defense, considers the methods used in experimental aesthetics to be invalid and unreliable.
Research method: The research examines the two empirical approaches of Cova and Zangwill regarding Kant’s aesthetics with a qualitative approach. In the first part, Kant’s opinion is briefly introduced. The next section introduces some of the most important empirical studies by Cova that are presented in Kant’s critique. An attempt is then made to categorize Zangwill’s critiques so that they can be analyzed in the final section.
Conclusion: It seems that empirical research can be used to better understand Kant’s aesthetics, and therefore, contrary to Zangwill, experimental aesthetics complements traditional aesthetics, not a failed attempt to discard them.