Purposiveness: The quality or fact of being purposive.
Purposive: 1. Characterized by being adapted to some purpose or end; serving or tending to serve some purpose in the constitution of things. 2. Acting or performed with conscious purpose or design.
Kant says, “Beauty is an object’s form of purposiveness insofar as it is perceived in the object without the presentation of a purpose.”
So here’s the question: How can something, an art object for instance, have purposiveness but have no purpose? Does it mean that art is imbued with some kind of intent but it still has no particular practical function? I know I’m a little slow to the draw sometimes, but this is downright perplexing to me.
Help me out people. I know you’re reading so tell me what the deal is yo.
May 15, 2007 at 4:53 am |
After reading this post I’m wondering if there is a connection to what I FINALLY wrote in reply to our ethics/morals discussion…
May 17, 2007 at 6:55 pm |
Hmmm… beauty becomes the purpose of an object when no other practical purpose is presented?
March 12, 2008 at 10:22 pm |
You perceive a thing to have purpose if you know what it’s for, you perceive a thing to have purposiveness if you know it’s for something. Kant says that you think things are pretty if you perceive their purposiveness but cannot perceive their purpose. Basically, we like stuff that looks designed but get bored if it’s obvious what it’s designed for.
March 13, 2008 at 8:17 pm |
Thank you, that makes loads of sense. I was probably just over-thinking it and got lost.