Change History

Responding to HP, it is interesting indeed there's no the word "modality" literally written in §18. Kant simply talks about "necesity" in stead of its superordinate "modality," and directly distinguish the necessity in judgment of taste from the apodeictic necessity (which is derived from determined concepts) and empirical necesity (which means something goes as such so far so well and is agreed with by all people, and which however for Kant only occurs in common use of language because experience alone can hardly support the evidence of necessity).

contribute another interesting observation here: do you notice that the distinction Kant made here seems parallel to that in the first moment: liking for the beautiful is distinguised from liking for the good and liking for the agreeable; and that in the second moment: The beautiful is presented as the object of a universal liking which is distinguished from the good and the agreeable. At both of the latter cases, the good is always determined with concepts, while the agreeable is always connected with concepts too but moreover insufficient for some necessary condition in each moment.


I think the message raised by HP is just an observation, right? There's actually no problem with the message.

Responding to HP, it is interesting indeed there's no the word "modality" literally written in §18. Kant simply talks about "necesity" in stead of its superordinate "modality," and directly distinguish the necessity in judgment of taste from the apodeictic necessity (which is derived from determined concepts) and empirical necesity (which means something goes as such so far so well and is agreed with y all people, and which however for Kant only occurs in common use of language because experience alone can hardly support the evidence of necessity).


I think the message raised by HP is just an observation, right? There's actually no problem with the message.

Responding to HP, it is interesting indeed there's no the word "modality" literally written in §18. Kant simply talks about "necesity" in stead of its superordinate "modality," and directly distinguish the necessity in judgment of taste from the apodeictic necessity (which is derived from determined concepts) and empirical necesity (which means something goes as such so far so well and is agreed with all people, and which however for Kant only occurs in common use of language because experience alone can hardly support the evidence of necessity).


I think the message raised by HP is just an observation, right? There's actually no problem with the message.