Time

Wed 24 Jun 2026, at 15:00

Place

No. 56, Yannanyuan Garden, Center of Aesthetics and Aesthetics Education

Speaker

HE Nian, Wuhan University

Language

Chinese

This is the 4rd lecture of the Classics of Continental Philosophy, Season 5 of the Pindu Series.

Abstract

In the history of philosophy and aesthetics, Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten is widely regarded as the “father of aesthetics,” chiefly because he was the first to establish aesthetics (Aesthetik), or the science of sensibility, as an independent discipline through his argument concerning “the perfection of sensory cognition itself.” Such a broad historical narrative, however, tends to overlook the practical character that Baumgarten emphasized at the very inception of aesthetics, especially the rich intellectual significance embodied in his idea of “aesthetic exercise” (exercitatio aesthetica).

Baumgarten introduced the concepts of the “clarity of sensibility” and the “perfection of sensible representations,” distinguishing them from the logical clarity proper to the understanding. More importantly, he explicitly maintained that the path toward the perfection of sensory cognition lies in aesthetic exercise (exercitatio aesthetica). This implies that aesthetics is fundamentally not a science of some rudimentary or inferior form of cognition, but rather a practical discipline: one that enables the various faculties of the soul to resonate through the richness of particular sensible representations, thereby transforming the aesthetic subject into a “complete aesthetic person” or a “happy aesthete” (felix aestheticus).

Yet throughout intellectual history, inquiries into the ultimate aim of aesthetic exercise have diverged into two fundamentally different trajectories:

1. The path of “disciplinarization,” represented by Michel Foucault’s critique of power discourse. Here, aesthetic exercise evolves into a form of disciplinary training through which power exercises control over the body, and the aesthetic subject becomes both the effect and the object of discipline.

2. The path of “individualization,” represented by Joachim Ritter. In this view, separated from social existence, the aesthetic subject is conceived as a subject of personal feeling, one that stands as the counterpart—or even the adversary—of social discipline.

It may be said that the debate between these two approaches has shaped nearly every aspect of the modern development of aesthetics and its significance. This lecture will seek to trace the intellectual genealogy of this problem and explore possible avenues toward its resolution.

     哲学史和美学史上，将鲍姆加登（Baumgarten）奉为“美学之父”，主要理由是其通过论证“感性认识自身的完善”而首次将美学/感性学（Aesthetik）建立为一门独立的科学。这样一种粗线条的宏观叙事容易忽视鲍姆加登建立美学学科之初所强调的其实践特质，尤其是“美学习练”思想所展现出来的丰富的思想史意义。鲍姆加登提出“感性的清晰性”与“感性表象的完善”概念，将之与知性的逻辑清晰性进行区别，同时更为重要的是，他明确指出，达至感性认识的完善的途径乃是“美学习练”（EXERCITATIO AESTHETICA），这意味着美学根本上不是关于某种初级或低级认识的科学，而是实践之学：让灵魂的各种官能在个别的感性表象的丰富性中实现共鸣，从而让美学主体成为“审美完人”/“幸福的审美者”（felix aestheticus）。然而，对“美学习练”之旨归的探究，在整个思想史上却分裂为两条根本不同的路径：1，以福柯的权力话语批判为代表的“规训化”路径：美学习练演变为权力对身体的控制性操练，美学主体成为规训的“效应及客体”；2，以里德（Joachim Ritter）为代表的与社会存在分离的“个体化”路径：美学主体是个人感受主体，它构成社会规训的“对手”。可以说，这两条思路的争辩几乎主导了美学的现代生发及其意义的所有方面。本讲座将尝试梳理这一问题发生的思想脉络与可能的解决方案。