Jon Mark Mikkelsen

Published in 1930, when Japan was struggling to define and assert its national and cultural identity, The Structure of Iki (Iki no kôzô) re-introduced the Japanese to a sophisticated tradition of urbane and spirited stylishness (iki) that was forged in the Edo period. Upon his return from Europe, Kuki Shûzô (1888–1941) made use of the new theoretical frameworks based on Western Continental methodology to redefine the significance of iki in Japanese society and culture. By applying Heidegger’s hermeneutics to this cultural phenomenon, he attempted to recast traditional understanding in the context of Western aesthetic theory and reestablish the centrality of a purely Japanese sense of "taste." The three critical essays that accompany this new translation of The Structure of Iki look at various aspects of Kuki, his work, and the historical context that influenced his thinking. Hiroshi Nara first traces Kuki’s interest in a philosophy of life through his exposure to Husserl, Heidegger, and Bergson. In the second essay, J. Thomas Rimer compels readers to reexamine The Structure of Iki as a work in the celebrated tradition of zuihitsu (stream-of-consciousness writings) and takes into account French literary influences on Kuki. The philosopher’s controversial link with Heidegger is explored by Jon Mark Mikkelsen in the final essay.

The purpose of this dissertation is to establish an interpretive framework for the study of Kant's Critique of Judgment. The central themes of the text are presented in the first chapter in terms of two different problems. The first is referred to as the prima facie problem. This problem concerns the search for a transcendental principle for the faculty of judgment corresponding to the principles established for understanding and reason in the first two critiques. The second is referred to as the systematic problem. This problem concerns the search for a transcendental principle which can mediate between the domains of understanding and reason and provide for a "unity of transition" between nature and freedom. ;The value of this interpretation is demonstrated in the second chapter through a criticism of Paul Guyer's work on the third critique, Kant and the Claims of Taste . This criticism focuses on Guyer's interpretive method and scholarship. ;The interpretation is developed further in the third and fourth chapters in which specific problems that have not been dealt with adequately in the recent literature in English are addressed. The systematic argument of the two introductions that Kant prepared for the text is presented in the third chapter. Finally, the fourth chapter focuses on the deduction of pure aesthetical judgments and advances an account of this argument that is shown to be preferable to the account of Guyer as well as that developed by Donald Crawford in his study Kant's Aesthetic Theory