Kant vs. Coleridge on beauty
Both Coleridge and Kant applied a sort of transcendentalism to the concept of beauty, differentiating between individual subjectivity and universal experience. Kant focuses more on the way we perceive beauty, and the psychological processes involved in this, while Coleridge focuses on the unique originality that great poetry is derived from. Both Coleridge and Kant address the flatness of perception, noting that our senses force us to experience it regardless of our own desires. However, Kant uses this principle as a means of expressing commonality in the human psyche and thus the human experience, while Coleridge asks us to add a second dimension and consider the restructuring of these perceptions via imagination. Furthermore, Kant and Coleridge share an essential opinion in their emphasis on pleasure; both note that it is not connected to reason, morality or ‘truth’ - but rather a free feeling.
In Biographia Literaria, Coleridge lays out his fundamental concept of the primary imagination versus the secondary imagination. Coleridge defines the primary imagination as how we perceive the world - whether or not we want to perceive it. This is a result of the information that our senses send to our brains. However, secondary imagination is a much more subjective concept - it is an echo of the primary imagination, and does rely on sensory information, but it notably is connected to the will. Coleridge explains that in using the secondary imagination, one is dissolving structures put into place by their primary imagination, and altering and recreating them with the idea of unification and idealism in mind. He posits that originality and creativity are essential to the second imagination and to the success of its products; the further something is broken down, and the more it is altered in its recreation, the better it will be. Coleridge emphasizes the power of the imagination and creativity in constructing excellent poetry, as opposed to following a set of rules. He makes the analogy of mechanical form, in which rules are imposed on a work of poetry and lessen its quality, and organic form, in which the conventions of poetry itself are what catalyzes the imaginative aspects of the work. Coleridge also posits that the immediate purpose of poetry is pleasure, and not truth. This concept of basic pleasure, without connections to morality or cultural pretense, is the common thread between Coleridge and Kant; both value the simplicity of a work, and find that its disconnection to all other aspects of philosophy and utility are the key to its beauty.
Kant differs in his approach from Coleridge, as well as other critics, in the fact that he is not interested in the literature or art itself, but in the way our minds understand it. Kant emphasizes the role of senses in perception, and more importantly, the universality of our brain’s intake of this information. Essentially, Kant believes that ‘beauty’ is more about our psychological processes than the object itself. Kant asks not what qualities of a piece make it beautiful, but rather, what are the psychological processes the preface judgment? Kant notes that this mental experience is universal, despite subjectivity in individuals’ tastes. Kant uses the concept of disinterest to explain how judgments of taste can be universal in theory, despite its failure in practice. He describes beauty as only existing when the nature of the perception is disinterested - essentially, when it is not influenced by considerations of personal advantage. While tastes may differ, the disinterested quality of beauty allows universality, because it frees the object from the constraints of morality and utility and personal motivation, and allows it to exist freely as itself. Kant argues that something is beautiful when you can “approve of it freely, without considering individual or collective interests.” (174). Thus, with the reasoning that beauty exists only when it is not based on a concept, we must assume that this sense of satisfaction is imputed to everyone. Kant repeatedly emphasizes the role of aesthetic judgment in perceiving beauty, which he points out is not rooted to logic or reason. Essentially, Kant examines the cognitive faculties that cause us to evoke feelings when perceiving beauty, the way this process of judgment occurs universally, as well as the simplistic nature of beauty, without the presence of utility or concept.
Kant and Coleridge both emphasize the simplistic form of beauty and how we experience it. Coleridge notes that our culture and education may push preconceptions onto us which clouds our judgment from this pure state. While Kant would likely agree on this point of individual subjection, I believe his thoughts on the validity of universal experience, removed from personal bias, and not connected to logic or reason, takes Coleridge’s sentiments to a new level.
