Abstract

First, I raise two objections against Ginsborg’s interpretation of natural teleology. I argue that Ginsborg’s notion of primitive normativity is too thin to account for Kant’s more substantive conception of the organism. Furthermore, I question whether Kant has room for a notion of purposiveness that is entirely divorced from intentional activity. Second, I ask about the implications of Ginsborg’s account of the relationship between aesthetic judgement and cognition. I suggest that her reading can easily be extended to allow for aesthetic pleasure in empirical reflection.