text_original: This is not the place to discuss whether this was not a complete mistake; all that I wish to emphasise is that Kant, just like other philosophers, instead of en  visaging the aesthetic problem from the standpoint of the experiences of the artist (the creator), has only considered art and beauty from the standpoint of the spectator, and has thereby imperceptibly imported the spectator himself into the idea of the "beautiful"! But if only the philoso  phers of the beautiful had sufficient knowledge of this "spectator"!
text_transcription: THIS IS NOT THE PLACE TO DISCUSS WHETHER THIS WAS NOT A COMPLETE MISTAKE ALL THAT I WISH TO EMPHASISE IS THAT KANT JUST LIKE OTHER PHILOSOPHERS INSTEAD OF ENVISAGING THE ESTHETIC PROBLEM FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE EXPERIENCES OF THE ARTIST THE CREATOR HAS ONLY CONSIDERED ART AND BEAUTY FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE SPECTATOR AND HAS THEREBY IMPERCEPTIBLY IMPORTED THE SPECTATOR HIMSELF INTO THE IDEA OF THE BEAUTIFUL BUT IF ONLY THE PHILOSOPHERS OF THE BEAUTIFUL HAD SUFFICIENT KNOWLEDGE OF THIS SPECTATOR
phonemes: ðɪs ɪz nˌɑːt ðə plˈeɪs tə dɪskˈʌs wˈɛðɚ ðɪs wʌz nˌɑːɾə kəmplˈiːt mɪstˈeɪk; ˈɔːl ðæt aɪ wˈɪʃ tʊ ˈɛmfɐsˌaɪz ɪz ðæt kˈænt, dʒˈʌst lˈaɪk ˈʌðɚ fɪlˈɑːsəfɚz, ɪnstˈɛd ʌv ˈɛn vˈɪzɪdʒɪŋ ðɪ ɛsθˈɛɾɪk pɹˈɑːbləm fɹʌmðə stˈændpɔɪnt ʌvðɪ ɛkspˈiəɹɪənsᵻz ʌvðɪ ˈɑːɹɾɪst (ðə kɹiːˈeɪɾɚ), hɐz ˈoʊnli kənsˈɪdɚd ˈɑːɹt ænd bjˈuːɾi fɹʌmðə stˈændpɔɪnt ʌvðə spɛktˈeɪɾɚ, ænd hɐz ðɛɹbˈaɪ ɪmpɚsˈɛptᵻbli ɪmpˈɔːɹɾᵻd ðə spɛktˈeɪɾɚ hɪmsˈɛlf ˌɪntʊ ðɪ aɪdˈiə ʌvðə "bjˈuːɾifəl"! bˌʌt ɪf ˈoʊnli ðə fɪlˈoʊsoʊ fˈɜːz ʌvðə bjˈuːɾifəl hæd səfˈɪʃənt nˈɑːlɪdʒ ʌv ðˈɪs "spɛktˈeɪɾɚ"!