Period With Dark Mucus

This fragment was found among his papers incomplete;

the author had no time to give the last hand
but the first thoughts of the great masters
deserve to be preserved for posterity,
as sketches of the great painters.

ENCYCLOPEDIA (1757), Vol VII *

Taste and Justice have been understood (a) sa times together and sometimes separately. Separate, when the aesthetic experience has been considered a very personal matter, a mere experience, what is commonly called "a matter of taste", and then the consideration of "justice" is not supported, it's been strange, pretentious and even violent about the unique position and unique, this perspective as valid as many others that pervade the universe of opinions. It makes no sense to judge in this version in order not to taste more than just taste.

Together means to Justice and the taste, however, when what is called "good taste" is considered, in justice, just a matter of justice because through trial judge aesthetic taste or the alien himself or, through the sophistication of that taste reached a consensus of taste, which is prized as a real universe in which all perspectives have been finally agreed.

Hume was refined taste in a matter of temperament, and because it can be counted among those with the taste and justice as to matters related only by a very specific relative to usual strengthen their bond, Kant, however, thought possible to make a real Justice of taste, or rather, what is much more daring-sought judge the same act of judging the taste, ruling-was-not the jurisdiction of the tribunal of reason in this matter, which, although not identified Taste and Justice, both deities cloistered themselves in the same room.

taste, good or bad, comes from a propensity to objects, a tendency that does not necessarily touch or, allegedly, adjust. That in principle.

But justice is a very different tendency. This activity is to correct the events according to a concept that is of that same event. Justice is not done only in the mind, as you can cultivate a taste-but it takes place under the "act of justice" that is externalized externalized as well as also an object of taste as it is precisely perceptible.

Now, the taste can become the object of justice as social events, according to justice, what is? This question should be replaced by a more fundamental: what is to be protected when we decline to do justice to the taste, if not try to improve it in accordance to the "good taste"?

E

try to answer the second question to avoid, in an elegant, first.

taste was trying to protect has not yet been received. Why? Because ultimately it seeks to protect by such abstention justice and guard against possible injustice likely.

Fables we have inherited from the twentieth century are brightly lighted in this regard. It has taught us that Le Figaro committed an act of great injustice when they despised and attacked the first impressionist exhibition, trade unions Soviets were unfair when they attacked Shostakovich, Akhmatova or Pasternak, that the Nazis showed their determination to shape their museums injustice of "Entertaible Kunst."

And, so, as the passage of time has allowed reassess what once was despised, and, therefore, the time has come to their senses, and thus achieve a posthumous justice is that a lesson we learned: it is necessary in order to be fair, delay the trial of taste.

In this sense, justice and taste are linked. A taste made possible delayed justice taste, a Gusticia .

However, the justice of the pleasure we always returned to the question whose answer we avoid: Is it right, and good taste, an act of justice to the taste? Say for example: This is a work of art, this is one of the great small works, this is the work of great promise, this is a complex work, this is interesting, this is not a work lacking, this is a mess , this is a real mess. Can there be justice in matters of taste and also good taste in the business of justice? In short, is it fair or good taste Gusticia?, Is it the Gusticia Gusticia?

* Heading chosen by the editor