Therefore, Kant’s dualism again manifests itself in the doctrine of the sublime and its differences from the beautiful.

Precisely because the feeling, regardless of any mood or need of the subject in relation to a particular object, is based on the harmony of two types of spiritual activity, the aesthetic feeling is general and subordinate to all. This explains the generality of taste and solves the problem: how a certain feeling can have a general character, which only makes it possible to characterize aesthetic judgment. Therefore, the disinterest of taste, Kant argues in the description of aesthetic judgment by quantity, leads to the fact that feeling, despite its individual source, contains the principle of universality, which gives it infinite reliability.

What is the nature of this universal feeling? In the article "Kant and the communicative problems of art" E. Basin writes that Kant faces two paths: either the general feeling – is the "original and natural ability" or "regulatory principle as a requirement of reason." Basin believes that by choosing the first, the philosopher takes the path of naturalistic theory of communication, choosing the second – on the path of transcendental theory. Kant chooses the second way.

Kant’s teaching on the communicativeness of aesthetic judgment contained two important tendencies. The first was an attempt to place the aesthetic evaluation above the empirical pleasure that gives a simple feeling, that is, above the pleasant. Although the generality of taste cannot be proved by logical means, it is still beyond the realm of empirical subjectivity. The second tendency of Kant’s doctrine of the universality of the communication of the judgment of taste "returns" it to the limits of the subjective understanding of aesthetic judgment. Kant removed the concept from the number of means by which aesthetic evaluation arises, which strengthened the subjective nature of the judgment of taste.

But the fact that Kant found the communicative function of aesthetic judgment allows us to identify an intersubjective approach to aesthetics. Beauty is not only a unity in itself, but also brings harmony to man, combining his sensuality as an ability of the individual and as belonging to the genus; thus it forms individuality as the unity of the individual and the genus. F. Schiller developed the idea of ​​communicative, socially constructive function of art. It is a form of communication that he calls "communication in the beautiful." other forms of communication divide society because "they belong either to the special receptivity of each individual or to the special abilities of individual members, that is, to how people differ from one another" and only communication perfectly unites people because it belongs to that is common to all ".

Thus, in analyzing taste and defining the principle underlying it, Kant emphasized the subjective and formal nature of beauty: subjective, because it is based on a certain structure, balance and harmony of subjective activities; formal, because its law belongs to the a priori principles. Kant gives taste a predicate of generality. The formal moment of such reasoning suggests that expediency should be defined as aimless, and the subjective moment characterizes the pleasure caused by harmony as disinterested pleasure.

In Kant, the criterion of beauty as a harmony of reason and sensuality is due to purely cognitive moments, which are considered subjectively. It takes on an extremely formal and abstract character argumentative essay, which limits the scope of aesthetic autonomy. The sphere of aesthetics really belongs only to free beauty, which is independent not only of the enjoyment of sensations as such, but also of any ideas about the nature and perfection of the object.

Kant himself says that the a priori principle of expediency goes beyond aesthetic search, because here arises the general problem of critical teleology. Therefore, such a restriction of the sphere of aesthetics leads to the fact that free beauty is tied to the usual figurative representation as such (with the generally accepted idea of ​​the object) and the latter is purified in the ideal of beauty as an expression of ideal improvement given in the representation of the object.

Beauty, which has so far been considered in its autonomy, becomes a "symbol of morality" that is, the bearer of a value other than a purely aesthetic principle. Therefore, if we consider beauty in terms of empirical relations between people, it is not only the guarantor of their coexistence, the principle of social union (later Schiller called this community as "communication in the beautiful"), but even more so, especially in relation to nature, acts as a "premonition of harmony" of the latter with the "secret" directions of our spirit, or … as a glimpse of freedom of purpose in the "dark necessity of the phenomenal world." This is a continuation of the Neoplatonic notion of beauty, which in modern times was again picked up by Leibniz and Shaftesbury.

Such an external desire for monism cannot hide the dualism of critical philosophy. The "symbol of morality" is an expression of the functioning of the thinking substrate, which is a manifestation of Kant’s irrationalism. Therefore, Kant’s dualism again manifests itself in the doctrine of the sublime and its differences from the beautiful.

The sublime is an "indefinite concept of reason" and not of reason, as in the case of the beautiful. It is no longer seen as a game of our cognitive abilities, but as a "serious occupation of the imagination." The representation of the mind leads to the suppression of sensuality, but after this suppression comes the elevation of the moral "I" awakening of its forces. There is no sense of integrity: since the soul is not only attracted by the object when contemplating the sublime, but also repelled by it, the pleasure of the sublime contains not so much pleasure as reverence and respect, ie this manifestation can be called " negative pleasure ".

The sublime, therefore, does not belong to a calm contemplation of harmony, but to an inner tension that contains both impartiality and inspiration. That is, the sublime is beyond the purely aesthetic view of the subject. "The quality of the feeling of the sublime," writes Kant, "is that it is a feeling of dissatisfaction with the aesthetic ability to look at an object."

From this interpretation P. Gaidenko concludes: the beautiful "can serve as a bridge between the world of nature and the world of freedom, it does not face the world of morality and reconciles with the imagination is not moral reason, but neutral reason, because the connecting link should be sublime, because there really is However, even here in a clear understanding of the connection can not be discussed, because the harmony of abilities does not occur here, and one ability is suppressed by another. Therefore, Kant, in the end, does not make a "connection between the world of nature and the world of freedom" that for him this connection seems to be manifested in the analysis of his doctrine of the teleological capacity for judgment. "

Thus, a purely aesthetic image cannot be created without linking it to an ideal. That is why a genius can create an imported beauty that is a reflection of objective expediency. This type of beauty carries a specific spiritual meaning, which leads to a violation of Kant’s pure aesthetic taste. This splitting of Kant’s position is removed by the fact that the activity of genius reaches its roots in the thinking substrate, in which all abilities are coordinated in the depths of our supersensible nature. "This mystique of the concept explains," writes Banffy, "why the aesthetic value that Kant tried to single out and define its a priori principle is mixed with his ethical and rational value."

Kant’s aesthetic irrationalism stems from the difficulty of deriving from the individual source the principle of the universality of the beautiful, which gives it unlimited authenticity. Kant sees the substantiation of the generality of the judgment of taste in the following moments of his concept:

the presence of an a priori principle; disinterest in the beautiful; harmony of our abilities of reason and imagination; function of the beautiful as a means of communication.

Thus, the solution to this problem occurs in Kant through the transition from a psychological description of aesthetic feeling to the definition of it as a logical category. This is possible only from the standpoint of the transcendental method, which goes beyond the pre-Kantian teachings, which defined beauty as the objectification of general norms or as a description of human psychological subjectivity. But this is not beyond subjectivity at all.

Kant is the originator of subjectivism, which limits aesthetics only to the analysis of a priori forms of aesthetic consciousness. Although perverted formalism, which seeks the unity of aesthetic structure only in its form, which is opposed to the content, has no right to appeal to the authority of Kant, Gadamer believes. When Kant introduced his notion of form, he meant something else. Author of "Coverand the ability to judge "characterizes" the principle of constructing an aesthetic structure by the concept of form and thus he opposes not the meaning of the content of the work of art, but against the material beginning of sensations "and therefore the impossibility of reducing feelings to them.

Today, feelings acquire a general meaning that complements costly thinking. They became, according to Horkheimer and Adorno, "a kind of conceptual apparatus, because consciousness everyday, before it takes perception, sees the world as the material from which it builds this world for itself. Kant intuitively predicted that only Hollywood succeeded.: Already in the process of production the images are pre-censored according to the standards of the reason according to which they should then be perceived. "

The perception by which public judgment is self-assured was already worked out by this public judgment even before it arose. But feelings can provide another type of generality. It consists in the social nature of the aesthetic fact. If when immersed in the aesthetic experience is another person with whom you can establish communication, then this experience is brought to an end. Hence the social nature of aesthetics, which is manifested in a sense of unity in the process of common contemplation. Beauty is the property of all because it is "expedient without purpose."

Beauty constitutes unity not only in itself, it brings harmony to man, combining his sensuality as an ability of the individual and as belonging to the genus, and thus postulates individuality as the unity of the individual and the genus. This theme was later developed in more detail by Schiller and the Romantics.