Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten | |
|---|---|
| Born | 17 July 1714 |
| Died | 27 May 1762(1762-05-27) (aged 47) Frankfurt (Oder), Margraviate of Brandenburg |
| Education | |
| Education | University of Halle University of Jena (no degree) |
| Academic advisors | Christian Wolff Johann Peter Reusch [de] |
| Philosophical work | |
| Era | 18th-century philosophy |
| Region | Western philosophy |
| School | Age of Enlightenment |
| Institutions | University of Halle Alma Mater Viadrina |
| Notable students | Georg Friedrich Meier |
| Main interests | Aesthetics |
| Notable ideas | Aesthetics as the perfection of sensuous cognition[1][2] |
Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten (/ˈbaʊmɡɑːrtən/;German:[ˈbaʊmˌgaʁtn̩]; 17 July 1714 – 27 May[3] 1762) was a Germanphilosopher. He was a brother to theologianSiegmund Jakob Baumgarten (1706–1757).
Baumgarten was born inBerlin as the fifth of seven sons of thepietistpastor of thegarrison, Jacob Baumgarten, and his wife Rosina Elisabeth. Both his parents died early, and he was taught by Martin Georg Christgau where he learnedHebrew and became interested inLatinpoetry.
In 1733, during his formal studies at theUniversity of Halle, he attended lectures on the philosophy ofChristian Wolff byJohann Peter Reusch [de] at theUniversity of Jena.[4][5]
While the meanings of words often change as a result of cultural developments, Baumgarten's reappraisal ofaesthetics is often seen as a key moment in the development ofaesthetic philosophy.[6] Previously the wordaesthetics had merely meant "sensibility" or "responsiveness to stimulation of the senses" in its use by ancient writers. With the development ofart as a commercial enterprise linked to the rise of anouveau riche class across Europe, the purchasing of art inevitably led to the question, "what is good art?". Baumgarten developed aesthetics to mean the study of good and bad "taste", thus good and bad art, linking good taste with beauty.
By trying to develop an idea of good and bad taste, he also in turn generated philosophical debate around this new meaning of aesthetics. Without it, there would be no basis for aesthetic debate as there would be no objective criterion, basis for comparison, or reason from which one could develop an objective argument.
Baumgarten appropriated the wordaesthetics, which had always meant "sensation", to mean taste or "sense" of beauty. In so doing, he gave the word a different significance, thereby inventing its modern usage. The word had been used differently since the time of the ancient Greeks to mean the ability to receive stimulation from one or more of the five bodily senses. In hisMetaphysic, § 607,[7] Baumgarten defined taste, in its wider meaning, as the ability to judge according to the senses, instead of according to the intellect. Such a judgment of taste he saw as based on feelings of pleasure or displeasure. A science of aesthetics would be, for Baumgarten, a deduction of the rules or principles of artistic or natural beauty from individual "taste". Baumgarten may have been motivated to respond to Pierre Bonhours' (b.1666) opinion, published in a pamphlet in the late 17th century, that Germans were incapable of appreciating art and beauty.
Kant
In 1781,Immanuel Kant declared that Baumgarten's aesthetics could never contain objective rules, laws, or principles of natural or artistic beauty.
The Germans are the only people who presently (1781) have come to use the wordaesthetic[s] to designate what others call the critique of taste. They are doing so on the basis of a false hope conceived by that superb analyst Baumgarten. He hoped to bring our critical judging of the beautiful under rational principles, and to raise the rules for such judging to the level of a lawful science. Yet that endeavor is futile. For, as far as their principal sources are concerned, those supposed rules or criteria are merely empirical. Hence they can never serve as determinatea priori laws to which our judgment of taste must conform. It is, rather, our judgment of taste which constitutes the proper test for the correctness of those rules or criteria. Because of this it is advisable to follow either of two alternatives. One of these is to stop using this new nameaesthetic[s] in this sense of critique of taste, and to reserve the nameaesthetic[s] for the doctrine of sensibility that is true science. (In doing so we would also come closer to the language of the ancients and its meaning. Among the ancients the division of cognition intoaisthētá kai noētá [sensed or thought] was quite famous.) The other alternative would be for the newaesthetic[s] to share the name with speculative philosophy. We would then take the name partly in its transcendental meaning, and partly in the psychological meaning. (Critique of Pure Reason, A 21, note.)
Nine years later, in hisCritique of Judgment, Kant conformed to Baumgarten's new usage and employed the wordaesthetic to mean the judgment oftaste or the estimation of the beautiful. For Kant, an aesthetic judgment is subjective in that it relates to the internal feeling of pleasure or displeasure and not to any qualities in an external object.
Tolstoy
In 1897,Leo Tolstoy, in hisWhat is Art?, criticized Baumgarten's book on aesthetics. Tolstoy opposed "Baumgarten's trinity – Good, Truth and Beauty…."[8] Tolstoy asserted that "these words not only have no definite meaning, but they hinder us from giving any definite meaning to existing art…."[8] Baumgarten, he said, claimed that there are three ways to know perfection: "Beauty is the perfect (the absolute) perceived by the senses. Truth is the perfect perceived by reason. The good is the perfect attained by the moral will."[9] Tolstoy, however, contradicted Baumgarten's theory and claimed that good, truth, and beauty have nothing in common and may even oppose each other.
…the arbitrary uniting of these three concepts served as a basis for the astonishing theory according to which the difference between good art, conveying good feelings, and bad art, conveying wicked feelings, was totally obliterated, and one of the lowest manifestations of art, art for mere pleasure…came to be regarded as the highest art. And art became, not the important thing it was intended to be, but the empty amusement of idle people. (What is Art?, VII.)
Whatever the limitations of Baumgarten's theory of aesthetics,Frederick Copleston credits him with playing a formative role in German aesthetics, extendingChristian Wolff's philosophy to topics that Wolff did not consider, and demonstrating the existence of a legitimate topic for philosophical analysis that could not be reduced to abstract logical analysis.[10]
Heidegger
Baumgarten receives a thorough and sustained treatment as one of the precedent thinkers to Kant in the seminar of Martin Heidegger in the summer semester of 1933, and in the winter semester of 1933-1934.[11]
For many years, Kant used Baumgarten'sMetaphysica as a handbook or manual for his lectures on that topic.Georg Friedrich Meier translated theMetaphysics from Latin to German, an endeavour which – according to Meier – Baumgarten himself had planned, but could not find the time to execute.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
