Abstract
In his lecture, “Kant and Schiller,” Paul de Man argues that “aesthetic ideology” emerged from Schiller’s misunderstanding of Kant. De Man contrasts the “chiasmus” of nature and reason in Schiller’s theory on the sublime as “ideological idealism” with Kant’s “material vision,” devoid of any teleology.
I criticize his argument from two viewpoints. First, we find a negation of teleology also in Schiller’s aesthetics, especially in his theory of the “chaotic sublime” as well as in his description of idleness and indifference in “Juno in Ludovici.” Second, Kant’s analytics of the sublime shares “aesthetic purposiveness” with Schiller.
I, therefore, conclude that de Man’s oversimplified distinction between Kant and Schiller contra- dicts his own insight into the ambivalent nature of the “aesthetic.”
