even thegenius does not know how they came about, Kant is putting forward aview that neither Hume nor Reid would agree with, as they would arguethat even if the genius is not conscious of how they formulated an idea,these rules can be discovered, just as a mathematician can later set outthe rules by which a conclusion they have come to is reached, even ifthey were not aware of them at the time.15/06/93 Kant's distinction between the discoveries of a scientist andthe genius behind a work of fine art is highly controversial, but he doesin my view put forward a very convincing argument in backing up thisclaim. If we accept that genius indeed consists of ideas that cannot beexplained, then there is good reason to think that scientists cannot begeniuses, as while at the time of the discovery they may not have usedrules to reach their conclusion and may have struck upon it by chanceor on the basis of an inspiration, once the discovery has been made, ifit holds true, rules can be formulated to explain how it was arrived at. This cannot be done in the case of what Kant terms an aesthetic idea. On this basis it would appear to be reasonable to conclude thatscientists cannot be geniuses. What I find less convincing is when Kant attempts to redress thebalance in some way in favour of scientists by pointing out that throughthe continuing advances made in science, "scientists can boast a groundof considerable superiority over those who merit the honour of beingcalled geniuses, since genius reaches a point at which art must makea halt, as there is a limit imposed upon it which it cannot transcend. This limit has in all probability been long since attained." (page 170). I can see absolutely nothing in Kant's account to justify this claim. Onwhat basis is it made? If we cannot even explain how or why geniusoccurs in certain people, on what basis does Kant think that it musthave a limit? And even if there is a limit, is there any reason to ...
