The objective of this article is to explore the work of two contemporary authors: Mario Perniola and Rosi Braidotti. They both defend an immanent materialism in which they find that there can be no radical distinction between human beings and the matter that surrounds them. An appeal to transcendental reason is no longer possible for them if one wants to understand and describe contemporary society. Each author explains, from their viewpoint, how the notion of subjectivity has been transformed, what the importance of difference is and what the role of sensibility should be, exploring, thusly, the ways in which the human interacts and melds with the world of the inorganic in this posthuman context. This article presents the positions of both authors in order to explore the extent to which possible connections and agreements can be drawn, as well as their key differences.

This paper examines the importance that judgements of taste have within Kant’s Critique of Judgement. It claims that looking for de facto agreements about judgements of taste is a mistake and that disagreements, instead, are desirable. Following Kant in the antinomy of taste, judgments of taste are not based on determined concepts, but rather on an undetermined one. Since the concept is not determined one cannot exhibit it in a sensible intuition or make direct reference to it. It is argued that universal agreement does not seek de facto agreement, but rather the discovery of a common sense in which one discovers that others can feel the same as one does with respect to a given representation. This undetermined concept becomes a “regulative ideal”, unobtainable in so far as one cannot determine it, but to which one must aim in order to perfect one’s taste. It is in the sphe...