Abstract
This paper analyzes the reception of sensus communis, or common sense, in
the context of the debates between Jean-François Lyotard and Jacques Rancière
on the political implications of Kant’s aesthetic theory. While sensus communis
has attracted political attention since Hanna Arendt’s lecture on Kant’s aesthetics,
Lyotard has criticized it for problems in the theory of consensus and community. In
contrast, Rancière has presented an alternative perspective, emphasizing the political
effectiveness of sensus communis and criticizing Lyotard’s argument.
By factoring out a common factor in the Third Critique, namely sensus communis,
this paper shows that Lyotard and Rancière differ in their understanding of the “ought
[Sollen]” in the Third Critique, which has led to their different receptions of Kant’s
aesthetics. The paper first provides an overview of the discussion of sensus communis
and the “ought” in the Third Critique. It then considers Lyotard’s argument for the
importance of the sublime instead of the beautiful grounding sensus communis. The
paper subsequently evaluates Rancière’s emphasis on the community of the beautiful,
and examines his criticism of Lyotard in this regard. Finally, it identifies where the
Kantian reception of Lyotard and Rancière diverges in the Third Critique in terms of
“ought”.
