I was having a conversation with Destre and another mutual friend on Kant’s aesthetics recently, and I recall him saying something to the end of:
“Despite Kant’s legacy in aesthetics being huge, vast, and incalculably influential, he was a philistine!!“
There are a lot of interesting discussions in Kant’s aesthetics, not just about the transcendental system (which I find more interesting); but actual discussions about the nature of art, genius, the sublime, the character of aesthetic judgments, and I think some insights relevant to the social sciences and metaethics, in there; he was still an uncultured bore. It’s horribly important that those who represent the vanguard of intellect should have decent cultural and artistic preferences; have some originality and exploration; I always believe that its an unbalanced character to be strong in one aspect of cultivation and weak in another.
It’s like how Antisophie sometimes says: where have all the good men gone, and where are all the polymaths? [any non-philistines may recognise a pop reference, perhaps?]