CONTEMPORARY TRENDS OF CRITICISM 

PROF. DR. METİN TOPRAK 

 
 ANALYSING FRIEDRICH SCHILLER’S “AESTHETIC
LETTERS” IN THE VIEW OF HIS PHILOSOPHY  
BÜŞRA ASLAN 
185258010 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ANALYSING FRIEDRICH SCHILLER’S “AESTHETIC
LETTERS” IN THE VIEW OF HIS PHILOSOPHY  
  
1.Introduction  
    Johann Christoph Friedrich von Schiller was born in 1759 and he is
regarded as one of the most important classical thinkers in Germany. He
is mostly known for his dramas but he was also an editor, journalist,
translator, poet and literary theorist. Although he studied law and
medicine, later he threw himself into literature and philosophy. In his
doctoral dissertation in medicine he was into the nature of human beings
rather than their physical conditions or finding a cure for some diseases
because his interests always lay in humanistic subjects. 
    Schiller’s philosophy is clearly under the influence of Immanuel Kant
who is the cornerstone of the modern philosophy. Schiller himself
declared that his own ideas are not original but rather committed to the
Kant’s philosophical concepts about aesthetics, art and transcendental
aesthetic in general. Throughout centuries art had so many purposes but
with the help of Kant art became autonomous in the 18th century. Kant
saw human mind is similar before any experience, and it works
systematically, temporal and spatial. Our reason Additionally his
modernist ideas about how beauty depends on the beholder and how this
idea helped art on the way through its freedom. Unlike Kant, Schiller can
be seen as Romantic because of his idealistic views about art especially.  
    Schiller mostly affected by the French Revolution and the ideas about
freedom. He saw art as the solution of the corrupted world after the
destructive effects of the French Revolution. It can be seen that his
theories owe much to the Enlightenment “the theory itself can be
understood as an example of that period's enthusiastic and contentious
study of living organisms” (Bentley 2009,1). 
    In his theoretical work On the Aesthetic Education of Man, published
in 1795, he is concerned with the revolution, freedom, the
Enlightenment, human psychology, transcendental beauty, politics, and
art. In his letters he submits that we need “fine art” which has the power
to keep us in harmony in this corrupted world. There this duality
between mind and sense through the centuries. In Enlightenment, since
focus was on the mind, senses and emotions can be undermined by the
Enlightenment thinkers such as Kant. Bentley emphasizes that how this
period of time effects Schiller’s philosophy by saying; “the polarities of
mind and body, sense and thought, perceptions and ideas, autonomy and
necessity, imagination and reason are all crafted into his general theory
of human nature” (3). Schiller on the other hand offers us a synthesis of
both, with the help of aesthetic and art. 
    My main purpose is to give information about the Schiller’s work On
the Aesthetic Education of Man by analysing his philosophy, mostly
effected by Kant and his own ideas which can be considered as
romantic. 
     
2.The Legacy of Kant  
   
    Immanuel Kant is the primary proponent who established a new
systematic philosophy in history.  
    In his Critique of Pure Reason (1781) he looks for answers to some
crucial questions such as ‘what is the capacity of human mind?’ and
‘how much we can know?’. It basically reflects his metaphysical ideas
about reason and science. In the work, he argues that "Human reason is
by its nature architectonic."(495). That is the art of constructing a
system. He means that our brain works systematically and our reason
requires all our faculties and cognitions to constitute a system. For
instance, each cause and each cause’s cause must have its own cause.
Kant states that all the entire empirical world must be comprehended by
reason. Thus, we can only think and understand when our reason
generates this architectonic system. Without this systematic unity our
knowledge cannot be processed so it is clear that our reason seeks the
systematic structure to reach a state which closes to totality. 
Additionally, he states that “There can be no doubt that all our cognition
begins with experience. But even though all our cognition starts with
experience, that does not mean that all of it arises from experience” (43),
which means that we have the same base in our mind before any
experience and it is universal. 
      After writing Critique of Pure Reason he tends to focus on the
experimental part of the reason which is the Critique of Practical
Reason (1788). In this work, Kant argues that the possibility of making
universal moral law. In fact, the meaning of practical reason is that the
capacity of a rational mind to act according to some principles. His
critique about the practical reason “is concerned with reason when it is
considering matter of morality and applying moral principles.” (Daniel
2009, 2). But the question was “can human beings create their own rules,
principles for them?” He argues that people should act morally in any
condition and the moral action should be for the sense of duty not
for self-centered reasons. For instance, when a rich man gives money to
the poor and if he just thinks about his social statue or his popularity,
then the action becomes immoral and it becomes “moral pretence” (Beck
1960, 234). Yet, Kant still believed that all people could be moral, that is
why he interested in actions and intentions rather than consequences. He
describes these actions and intentions as “maxim”. It is the general
principle behind the action. In his Groundwork of the Metaphysics of
Morals (1785) he says that; "Act only according to that maxim by which
you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." So,
it can be possible that human beings create universal moral law but in
order to constitute this law, we must undermine our benefits. Self-
interest is not appropriate for moral action as mentioned before. When
we talk about selfless existence of human beings, we should turn our
perspective to the third critique.  
      His Critique of Judgement (1790) is divided into two main
sections; Critique of Aesthetic Judgment and the Critique of Teleological
Judgment. He tries to establish the principles basic faculty of
judgment as he did in his previous two critiques. In the first section he
examines our faculty of judgement; the beautiful, the sublime and the
good. The good is a judgement that is ethical or moral. The beautiful and
the sublime are different from the good, they are “subjective universal”
judgements, as Kant says. For him, we observe the world through our
subjectivity, and because of that there can be no objective truth in this
world. When something is beautiful for us it should satisfy our mind’s
need for order and unity, so that we can say that it is beautiful. Because
our mind works systematically, as mentioned before and it can be seen
that Kant’s revolutionary ideas in his works. Before Kant, the reason that
we call something beautiful was related to the object itself not the
subject. The second section of the critique concentrates on the apparent
teleology in nature's design. Kant states that our minds seek order in
nature and this is the main principle of all our judgments. Even if the
work also deals with science and teleology, actually the most
remembered part is the matters about aesthetics. Kant describes the
aesthetic judgments as the “judgments of taste” and he remarks that even
these judgments involve one’s subjective feelings, they also have the
universal validity just as our morality. He claims that judgements of taste
are universal by saying that; 
The judgement of taste is distinguished from a logical judgement
in this, that the latter subsumes a representation under the concept
of the Object, while the former does not subsume it under any
 concept; because otherwise the necessary universal agreement (in
these judgements) would be capable of being enforced by
proofs. (96) 
   In brief Kant’s revolutionary ideas shaped modern
philosophy enormously. For Kant, we all born
with our mathematical background, like Plato said about the ideas. This
mathematical system in our minds can be seen as the pure reason, after
living in this world and culture our minds are polluted by the selfish,
self-centred ideas which can be liken to the practical reason. In order to
create moral laws –because we need to be moral no matter what but we
cannot be totally moral if we think only ourselves- all people should
leave their profits behind and turn to their pure reason which
is appreciated and our judgements can be a bridge to turning to our pure
reason and making universal moral law which happen to make us total
and complete.  
  Further, Kant’s ideas about art are also revolutionary in terms of
subjectivity and being disinterested. Art and aesthetics are subjective and
help us to become complete as well.  
   
2.1 Kant’s Effect on Schiller 
  
   The Enlightenment was the perfect time for the philosophers to make
differences just before the Revolutions broke out and turned into a
bloody terror, so they turned their scope to the nature and its law. In the
history of aesthetics and ethics firstly Kant is considered and Friedrich
Schiller followed him who developed and also criticized Kant's views in
both areas. Even today, Kant and Schiller are one of the most important
names in the fields of aesthetic and moral knowledge.  
  Briefly, Kant and Schiller both argued about morality
and aesthetics. Schiller mostly intends to criticize Kant. Guyer suggests
that Schiller’s ‘criticisms’ might be better described as helpful
suggestions or maybe clarifications of Kant’s own position.
(Wingear 2013, 2) 

 “In the end, surely, the point of Schiller’s twofold ideal of grace
and dignity is not primarily to criticize Kant’s ethics but to use his
artistic powers to defend Kant’s view, perhaps from the more
scornful tendency within himself and certainly from the many
critics who had ridiculed Kant’s separation between happiness and
virtue from the moment the Groundwork was published” (Guyer
1993, 354). 

 Saperstein states that “Schiller uses Kant’s theories as a stepping-stone

to his more practical ideas concerning aesthetic education, a program
that encourages play and the balance of sense and reason that results”
(2004, 3). 
 Schiller argues about acting morally, one should completely be
disinclined for duty, and this results in a denial of happiness, sympathy,
friendship and other basic human pursuits and emotions. On the other
hand, Kant thinks that moral behaviour should not be for the duty,
otherwise it is not approval. Schiller’s another criticism is that “Kant
presents the moral law as a tyrannous yoke. According to Schiller, Kant
refuses to allow people to act directly on even their most noble
inclinations.” (Winegar 2013, 2) For him, being moral should not
confine oneself from his/her freedom. Yet, as already mentioned Kant’s
morality forced people to ignore their feelings.  
  In Schiller’s “On Grace and Dignity” can be read as a critique of Kant's
moral theory rather than of his aesthetic matters. Schiller seems like
holding that the ideal for moral conduct is that complete the harmony
between the determination of the will by moral principles and our natural
and instinctive desires and inclinations that is expressed in
grace. Schiller’s essay “On Grace and Dignity” is partly as a corrective
to Kant’s position in the Critique of Judgment. (Curran 2005, 21) 
  Also, Schiller's “Kallias” letters, written to his friend in 1793 are very
fascinating today. Schiller argues that Kant's “subjectivist” beauty
conception in an aesthetic matter, it has to be replaced with an
“objectivist” conception of beauty; a beautiful form is one that
determined not by external forces of it but only by itself. So, “A form is
beautiful, one might say, if it demands no explanation, or if it explains
itself without a concept” (Schiller
1793). Schiller explains what beauty is; Schiller’s idea of the beautiful is
that transcends us what is beautiful, it is not about our own personal
preferences but the characteristics of the beautiful thing itself. For him,
opposingly to Kant, beauty does not need any explanation or
supplement. Schiller proposes to discover the objective principle of
beauty following the process of Kant’s transcendental deduction: by
asking what our ability to perceive beauty reveals about our mental
faculties. He concludes that people must have two forms of reason:
theoretical and practical. It is argued that Kant actually makes greater
claims for the significance and contribution of both moral sentiments and
aesthetic responses to the individual achievement of morality than
Schiller does. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2017) 
  Consequently, although Schiller mostly criticizes Kant’s ideas about
morality and beauty, as it can be seen in his philosophical works, he was
inspired by him. 
 
3.Schiller’s Philosophy 
 
  Schiller has an immense influence not only on German literature also
on international literature. He wrote more than a hundred poems, so
many plays and philosophical works. He is considered as one of the most
important playwrights in Germany. He is even referred to as the German
Shakespeare. His poem “Ode to Joy” is used by one of the best
composers Beethoven. Also, his philosophical works are very essential
for the philosophy of aesthetics and ethics. It can be understood that his
works are very impressive for many different fields.  
  His friendship with Goethe helped him to establish his ideas about
aesthetics mostly.  
   As an adolescent he was forced to enrol in the new military school, and
he forced against to study medicine, Schiller had passion to investigate
further the interaction of body and mind. (Schutjer 2001, 81). Even if he
studied law and medicine, he has always an interest on human nature not
medical matters. 
   Since he had the hopes for French Revolution because he
was opposed to all kinds of authoritarianism and he was like the poet of
freedom in that time, he lamented after the French Revolution by saying
that; “we see the spirit of the age wavering between perversity and
brutality, between unnaturalness and mere nature, between superstition
and moral unbelief...” 
   Schiller's essay “On Naïve and Sentimental Poetry” was influential. In
this work Schiller describes the difference between “naïve” and
“sentimental” art. The former is an expression of an immediate
emotional response to nature, where nature is thought of as “the
subsistence of things on their own, being there according to their own
immutable laws” or a longing for a wholeness, unity with nature that
once Ancient Greeks had but that we now have lost. Schiller identifies
naïve poetry with antiquity and sentimental poetry (and the sense of
alienation from nature it expresses) with modernity. As he is considered
as a romantic as well as the Enlightenment thinker, describes nature as
our childhood, pure and innocent. In Ancient Greece people were with
nature and their laws were created by nature itself, it was simpler times.
Childhood is considered as pure because all our needs were supplied. For
him, culture separates us from nature, just as Kant’s practical reason and
the ideal is for turning back to nature. Although how nice it was, we
cannot back to nature/childhood. We should make a synthesis with
reason and emotion to become near that natural unity. In this quotation
we can see the  
They are what we were; they are what we ought to become once
more. We were nature as they, and our culture should lead us back
to nature, upon the path of reason and freedom. They are therefore
at the same time a representation of our lost childhood, which
remains eternally most dear to us; hence, they fill us with a certain
melancholy. At the same time, they are representations of our
highest perfection in the ideal, hence, they transpose us into a
sublime emotion. (1801, 2) 

  So, how can we go back to this unity? Schiller’s answer is predictable,

with art. Then the new art should carry us away to the pure
nature/childhood and for this aim drama is perfect. It has the effect
of enlightening and it is the product of the intellectual ones. This art
should be based on creativity, nature, science and some boundaries have
to set with morality and reason because nature has also
boundaries. Also, the morality should be at the centre in the Age of
Reason and it should be considered.  
  As a contrast to the Enlightenment thinking, reason is not enough to
make us whole again, we need the field that have to involve our senses.
If the Enlightenment does not require emotions, then it is not considered
as complete enlightenment.  
 
3.1.Aesthetic Letters 
 
   Schiller’s “On the Aesthetic Education of Man”
(Über die ästhetische Erziehung des Menschen in einer Reihe
von Briefen) simply as Aesthetic Letters is his best-known theoretical
work. It was written in the form of letters to his new patron, the Prince of
Schleswig-Holstein-Augustenburg, it has a critique of the
Enlightenment, an account of transcendental beauty, an analysis of
human psychology, and an image of a new, ideal government designed
to help humans to reach their full potential in freedom. 
  In the beginning of these letters, Schiller seems to be a Kantian “in
truth, I will not keep back from you that the assertions which follow rest
chiefly upon Kantian principles” but even in the first letter he explicitly
rejects the Kantian categorical imperative, which is the moral philosophy
of Kant.  
 For Schiller, “the most perfect of all works of art” is “the construction of
a true political freedom.” However, after witnessing the terror of the
French Revolution, Schiller concludes that, “in order to solve the
political problem in experience,” one “must take the path through the
aesthetical, because it is beauty through which one proceeds to
freedom.” (Letter 2) He also states that “art is the daughter of freedom”.
So basically, he thinks that only art can save us from the corrupted
world. Reflecting on the French Revolution again in his letters, Schiller
argues that only through beauty freedom can be proceed.  Yet, Schiller
does not propose to escape from the political theater into the theater of
beautiful art, but rather that art must “elevate itself with suitable
boldness above want,” in order to contribute to true freedom in the
political realm. (Wertz 2005, 85) He states that with art people can be
free and intellectual as well; 
 Now man can be opposed to himself in a twofold manner: either as
a savage, when his feelings rule over his principles; or as a
barbarian, when his principles destroy his feelings. The savage
despises art, and acknowledges nature as his despotic ruler; the
barbarian laughs at nature, and dishonours it, but he often proceeds
in a more contemptible way than the savage, to be the slave of his
senses. The cultivated man makes of nature his friend, and
honours its friendship, while only bridling its caprice. (Letter 4) 
 
  He argues that human should be moral but with considering the laws of
nature; “Before he had opportunity to hold firm to the law with his will,
reason would have withdrawn from his feet the ladder of nature.” (Letter
3) As can be seen in this quotation Schiller thinks that one should not
turn back on nature to make himself powerful and his society as well.
Therefore, he says; “a support for the continuance of society, which
makes it independent of the natural state, which one wants to dissolve.”
(Letter 3)  
  Schiller is also against the Kant’s negative view of human’s nature by
saying that; “It may be urged that every individual man carries, within
himself, at least in his adaptation and destination, a purely ideal man.”
(Letter 4) In this letter he also he criticizes the Aristotelean concept of a
man who is mere rational animal and just capable of deductive logic not
cognition. As we know Aristotle was more secular than Plato
and Schiller’s ideas are more like Plato such as the creation of human by
the image of God (the ideal one) and every human has the capacity for
creative reason.  
 In the sixth letter, he praises the Ancient Greeks about how they were
“married to all the charms of art and to all the dignity of wisdom,” and
criticizes the corrupted world of their time is held by
antagonisms. Therefore, Schiller does not propose to return to the past:
“One-sidedness in the exercise of its powers leads the individual
inevitably to error, but the species to truth.” (Wertz 2005, 88) instead
with creating the higher art human beings can achieve this ideal state. 
 He defines the human as the combination of a person and a condition,
that former stays the same despite the changes in the latter. Neither can
remain in isolation or the man ceases to be man. It is through the senses
that the “way to the divine is opened up.”  
 In Letter 12, Schiller claims that human beings are impelled towards the
accomplishment of these two imperative drives, the form and the sense
drive. The sense drive “proceeds from the physical existence of
man”. The form drive by contrast affirms the person as constant
throughout change. 
 In 14th letter, Schiller introduces us the concept of “play” for the first
time with “creative power.”  
The imagination, like the bodily organs, has in man its free
movement and its material play, a play in which, without any
reference to form, it simply takes pleasure in its arbitrary power
and in the absence of all hindrance. These plays of fancy,
inasmuch as form is not mixed up with them, and because a free
succession of images makes all their charm, though confined to
man, belong exclusively to animal life, and only prove one thing
that he is delivered from all external sensuous constraint
without our being entitled to infer that there is in it an independent
plastic force. 
 
  He gives examples from the Ancient Greeks to make his point “the
ideal of beauty, which reason establishes, ideal of the play drive is also
presented, which man should have before his eyes in all his plays.” we
“must seek for the ideal form of a Venus, a Juno, an Apollo, not in
Rome, but rather in Greece.” (Letter 15) 
Schiller ends his letters with a question,  
Does such a state of beauty in appearance exist, and where? It
must be in every finely harmonised soul; but as a fact, only in
select circles, like the pure ideal of the church and state in circles
 where manners are not formed by the empty imitations of the
foreign, but by the very beauty of nature; where man passes
through all sorts of complications in all simplicity and innocence,
neither forced to trench on another's freedom to preserve his own,
nor to show grace at the cost of dignity. 
 
Consequently, in this quotation he summarizes the main ideas in his
letters. Schiller argues that the question of the aesthetic becomes the
question of the being man is never fully attained. Does this state really
exist? For Schiller, as for Plato, the universe is not entropic, and man is
not a beast. (Wertz 2005, 104) For him, yes it exists within human
beings. 
 
4.Conclusion 
 
  As stated above, Schiller’s philosophy is based on mostly Kant’s ideas
about reason, beauty, aesthetics and morality. It can be seen that Schiller
is very impressive poet, philosopher, revolutionary playwright. Schiller
believes in the freedom of human beings with the help of higher
art. “It is only through Beauty that man makes his way to Freedom”
states Schiller. He defends the harmony between human reason and
senses. As both Romantic and the Enlightenment thinker Schiller argues
that in his philosophical works, argued that freedom can be required with
art and without emotions there can be no Enlightenment at all. 
 
 
 
 
 
                           
Works Cited 
  
 Audrey L. Anton (2015), Kant on Irresistible Inclinations: Moral Worth,
Happiness, and Belief in God Audrey L. Anton Minerva - An Open
Access Journal of Philosophy 19  
Beck, Lewis White (1960) A Commentary on Kant's Critique of
Practical Reason, University of Chicago Press,  
 Bentley, Susan M.(12-2009), Friedrich Schiller 's Play: A Theory of
Human Nature in the Context of the Eighteenth-Century Study of Life.
The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository. Electronic Theses
and Dissertations 
Curran, Jane V., and Christophe Fricker, editors. “Schiller’s Essay
‘Über Anmut Und Würde’ as Rhetorical Philosophy.” Schiller's "On
Grace and Dignity" in Its Cultural Context: Essays and a New
Translation, Boydell and Brewer, 2005 
Daniel, David Mills (2009) Briefly: Kant's Critique of Practical Reason:
(the Concept of the Highest Good and the Postulates of the Practical
Reason). Hymns Ancient and Modern Ltd  
De Man, Paul. Aesthetic Ideology. Edited by Andrzej Warminski, NED -
New edition ed., vol. 65, University of Minnesota Press, 1996.  
 Gauthier, Jeffrey A. 1997 ‘Schiller’s Critique of Kant’s Moral
Psychology: Reconciling Practical Reason and an Ethics of Virtue,’ in:
Canadian Journal of Philosophy vol. 27 no.4, pp. 513-543.  
Guyer, Paul (1996), Kant and the Experience of Freedom: Essays on
Aesthetics and Morality. Cambridge University Press, Florence RC
Murray Professor in the Humanities University of Pennsylvania- 449 
http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/k/kant/immanuel/k16ju/chapter21.html 
https://archive.schillerinstitute.com/transl/Schiller_essays/naive_sentime
ntal-1.html 
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/schiller/ 
Kant, Immanuel (1996) Critique of Pure Reason, Hackett Publishing
Company, Indianapolis/Cambridge 1030  
Kant, Immanuel (2009) Critique of Judgement, Translated by Thomas
Kingsmill Abbott. The Floating Press, 275 
Saperstein, Ariella (2004) BEAUTY AND MORALITY in
SCHILLER’S AESTHETIC EDUCATION AND BEYOND A Study of
the Letters on the Aesthetic Education of Man  
Schiller, Friedrich (2002) Letters Upon The Aesthetic Education of
Man, Blackmask Online/ http://public-library.uk/ebooks/55/76.pdf 
Schiller, Friedrich (2003) Kallias or Concerning Beauty: Letters to
Gottfried Körner, In J. M. Bernstein (ed.), Classic and Romantic German
Aesthetics. Cambridge University Press.  
Schutjer, Karin Lynn (2001) Narrating Community After Kant: Schiller,
Goethe, and Hölderlin, Wayne State University Press Detroit, Michigan. 
Wertz, Jr William F. (2005) A Reader’s Guide to Letters on the
Aesthetical, Issue of Fidelio Volume 14, Number 1-2, Spring-Summer
2005 
Wingear, Reed (2013) An Unfamiliar and Positive Law: On Kant and
Schiller Department of Philosophy, Fordham University, B25 Collins
Hall, 441 E. Fordham Road, Bronx, NY 10458