L O 6 1 t 
16 
conceptions. Both thefe fundamental powers may indeed 
be confidered in another point of view, and be defined in 
quite another manner; namely, Senfe as the power of 
Receptivity, and Underftanding as the power of Spon¬ 
taneity. 
This mode of explanation is however not logical, but 
metaphy/ical 5 and is more fully given in vol. xi. p. 608. 
where the dilfeCtion of the Human Mind into its original 
and fundamental powers of Reason, Understanding, 
and Sense, is treated of. It is alfo culfomary to term 
Senfe the inferior, and Underftanding the fuperior, power; 
becaufe Senfe furniflies only the natter of thought; while 
the Underftanding difpofes of this matter, and arranges it 
tinder rules or conceptions. 
Upon this diftinCtion between Intuitive and Difcurfve 
Knowledge, or between intuition and conception, refts 
the difference between the ^sthetical and logical 
perfections of knowledge. 
Knowledge may be perfeCt either according to the laws 
of Senfe or to thofe of Underftanding. In the former cafe 
it is sefthetically perfect, and in the latter logically. 
AEfthetical and logical perfection are therefore different 
in kind ; the former relates to fenfe, the latter to under¬ 
ftanding. The logical perfection of knowledge depends 
upon its agreement with the objeCl, confequently upon 
miverfally-valid laws, and can therefore be judged of ac¬ 
cording to norma, or rules a. priori. AElthetical perfection 
confifts in the agreement of Knowledge with the fubjeCt, 
and depends upon the pec\\Wa.\' fenfttivenefs of men. Hence 
aefthetical perfection has no univerfally-valid laws, in 
refpeCt to which it may be judged of a priori in a univer¬ 
fally-valid manner. However, as there are univerfally-va¬ 
lid Laws of Senfe, not indeed objectively valid for 
thinking beings in general, but only fubjeCtively fo for each 
individual in particular, we can ftill form a conception 
of AEfthetical Perfection which contains the ground of a 
univerfal fubjeCtive pleafure, namely Beauty, that which 
p/eafes the fenfe in the intuition, and may therefore become an 
objeCl of univerfal delight, becaufe the laws of intuition 
are the univerfal laws of Senfe. 
By this agreement with the univerfal laws of fenfe, the 
Beautiful, which confifts in pure form, is fpecifically diftin- 
guilhed from the agreeable, which only pleafes in the feel¬ 
ing by ftimulus or emotion ; and for this reafon can only 
•produce an individual gratification. This pure sfthetical 
•perfection is that which agrees belt with the logical. 
AEfthetical perfection, fo far as regards the beautiful, 
as of lervice to logical perfection; but it is alfo difadvan- 
tageous to it, when we attend merely to the agreeable, 
•which confifts in our feelings, and has no reference to 
pure form, but only to the matter of fenfe. For feelings are 
the greateft enemies to the logical perfection of knowledge. 
There is always a fort of ltrife between the logical and 
sefthetical perfection of knowledge, which cannot be 
perfectly removed. The Underftanding demands to be 
anftruCted ; Senfe to be pleafed; the former requires in- 
iight, the latter facility of apprehenfion. The beautiful, 
though fuperficial, will pleafe the Senfe, but not fatisfy 
the Underftanding ; the profound, though dry, will in- 
tereft the Underftanding, but not gratify the Senle. 
It is, however, extremely defirable to unite thefe two kinds 
of perfection, and to give an aefthetical form to all Inch 
knowledge as is fufceptible of it; in order to render that po¬ 
pular which is fcholaftically accurate and logically perfeCt. 
But in this attempt to unite aefthetical and logical perfec¬ 
tion, we muft not forget that logical perfeElion is the bafis 
of all other perfection, and muft on no account be facri- 
ficed to any other. 
In order to fliow more clearly the difference between 
the logical and aft helical perfections of our Knowledge, we 
will compare them with each other under the four heads 
of Quantity,-Quality, Relation, and Modality, 
Knowlege is perfect according to 
5. Quantity when it is Univerfal j 
2. Quality when it is D ft mil , 
3. Relation when it is True 5 
4. Modality when it is Necejfary. 
Confidered in thefe points of view, Knowledge is logically 
perfeCt when it has objeSlive Univerfality, ebjedive DiftinCt- 
nefs, objective Truth, and objective Necefiity. 
To thefe logical perfections of Knowledge, correfpond 
the following AEfthetical Perfections under the fame four 
heads; namely 
1. Aft he tic a l Univerfality, This confifts in the applica¬ 
bility of Knowledge to a variety of objeCis, which may 
ferve as examples. 
2. Mfthetical DiJlinHnefs. This is a diftinctnefs by means 
of intuition, by which an abftraCt conception is viewed 
or illuftrated in concreto; by an example. 
3. ALJlhetical Truth. A merely fubjeCtive truth, confift- 
ing in the agreement of our knowledge with the laws of 
the fenfible phenomena. It is confequently nothing more 
than a general appearance. 
4. JEfthetical Neceflity. A neceffity according to the evi¬ 
dence of the fenfes, as being confirmed by feeling and ex¬ 
perience. 
In the above-mentioned perfections two points always 
occur; the harmonious union of which conftitutes perfec¬ 
tion in general; namely, variety and unity. In Under¬ 
ftanding, the unity lies in the conception 5 in Senfe, in 
the intuition. 
Mere Variety without Unity cannot fatisfy us. Truth 
therefore is the higheft of all perfections, fince it is the 
ground of unity in the reference of knowledge to its ob¬ 
ject. Even in aefthetical perfection, Truth is after all the 
conditio fine qua non, the chief negative condition, without 
which nothing can univerfally pleafe the tafte. Hence no 
one can hope to fucceed in the Fine Arts who has not laid 
as a foundation the logical perfection of his knowledge. 
It is in the greateft poilible union of logical with refthe- 
tical perfection, in thofe works which are defigned both to 
inftruCt and pleafe, that the true character of Genius is 
manifelled. 
IV. Particular Logical Perfections of Know¬ 
ledge. 
A. Logical PerfeElion of Knowledge as to Quantity. — Extenftve 
and lntenftve Quantity.—Extent and Solidity of Knowledge,—* 
Determination of the Horizon of our Knowledge, 
Quantity of Knowledge may be underftood either as 
extenfive or intenfive. The former implies its multitude 
or variety, the latter its contents or folidity, which includes 
alfo its fruitfulnefs fo far as it is a ground of numerous 
and important confequences. (Non multa, fed multum.) 
In extending- our Knowledge, or giving it the perfec¬ 
tion of extenfive quantity, it is proper to confider its 
agreement with our ends and capacities. This reflection 
refers to the determining the Horizon of our Knowledge ; by 
which is to be underftood, the proportioning the quan¬ 
tity of knowledge we colleCt to our capacities, and to 
the ends we have in view. 
The Horizon of Knowledge may be determined, 
1. Logically, i.e. according to the powers of the 
knowing Faculty, with a view to the intereft of Underftand¬ 
ing. We have here to determine how far we can proceed 
in knowledge in general, and how far we mult proceed for 
the accomplifhment of our chief end or defign. 
2. aesthetically, i. e. according to Tafte, with a 
view to the intereft of Senfe or Feeling.— Whoever deter¬ 
mines his horizon aelthetically, endeavours to regulate fei- 
ence according to a univerfal tafte, that is to render it po¬ 
pular-, and indeed toacquire fuch knowledge onlyasadmits 
of univerfal communication, and may be interefting even 
to the illiterate. 
3. Practically, i. e. advantageoufly with refpeCt to 
the intereft of PraSlical Reafon or of the Will. The prac¬ 
tical horizon, when it is determined agreeably to the in-? 
fluence which knowledge has upon our Morals, is prag¬ 
matical, and is of the higheft importance. 
The Horizon of Knowledge therefore determines either 
what 
