I find this excerpt of Derrida’s writing of little Nuetzlichkeit (subjectively), and wether I’m allowed to, according to Kant, or not, I think that may lie in the fact that I find little beauty in it. It seems to me that the very idea of subjectivity proposed here is far too discreet from, and somehow also subjugated under, a numinous ‘objectivity.’ This is where philosophy gets too religious for me. Why not just say that the judgement over the relative Nuetzlichkeit of any given thing is a function of being alive, with needs and desires such as to adapt, learn, survive. The so-called objective Nuetzlichkeit of anything cannot be presumed to be known, since it’s meaning in the universe is necessarily too complex to fathom, and, in the case of a meaningless universe, may well not exist at all? What good is it to try make oneself the judge of perfection in any other than a temporary one, while trying to deconstruct the one thing, beauty, that we can experience as a gift, i.e. a timeless re-emergence of a hidden essence in an infinite number of manifestations? Of course they are different, because the notion of perfection is necessarily limited by our ignorance of how things work (in large part our inability to see into the future), while the notion of beauty is limited by our strength of heart to face the known.
my two cents,