Abstract

In my commentary, I argue that Ginsborg’s understanding of the primitive normativity in reflective aesthetic judgement should be broadened to account for further characterizations of the judgement of taste given in Kant’s ‘Analytic of the Beautiful’. In particular, I stress the distinction between the consideration of universal communicability, on which Ginsborg focuses, and Kant’s account of common sense. Understanding how the latter notion has an equiprimordial place in the account of taste may allow us to see that aesthetic judgement is not inconsistent with conceptual articulation, as long as we properly distinguish what it means to have something fall under a concept and what it is to recognize something to exemplify a fitting place in what can become a systematically explicit space of concepts.