Nor do we even know exactly what its effects are, for hypotyposis is a figure whose effects are themselves described figuratively, with an "as if." Seeing Is Reading

The question arises why, in that case, Kant thinks symbolic hypotyposis is hypotyposis at all. Seeing Is Reading

Here, the comparison to make with Kant is with Kant's statements about figuration, about what he calls hypotyposis, which is the difficulty [my italics — RT] of rendering, by means of sensory elements, purely intellectual concepts. Seeing Is Reading

(A schematic hypotyposis might be, for example, a Euclidean proof.) Seeing Is Reading

Kant's text even illustrates hypotyposis by hypotyposis: His verbal comparison between the comparison between tyrannies and pepper grinders, on one hand, and symbolic and schematic hypotyposes, on the other, shows by symbolic hypotyposis how symbols and schemata are both hypotyposes. Seeing Is Reading

She offers a close reading of Kant's discussion of hypotyposis in section 59 of the Introduction

The thinking of hypotyposis, then, could be a model for the realization of aesthetics 'limits and the self-critical registration of this realization. Seeing Is Reading

The only thing that becomes clear in such definitions is that hypotyposis is as thin referentially as a term of art could be. Seeing Is Reading

At any rate, hypotyposis for Kant is certainly a problem for understanding, and a very difficult problem that again threatens philosophical discourse; whereas here it is offered by Schiller as a solution, again in the form of a chiasmus, for a similar opposition. Seeing Is Reading