 Although interest in the Critique of Judgment has increased substantially over the last several decades, it has received less attention than the other two Critiques. One reason is that the areas of aesthetics and natural teleology have traditionally been considered less philosophically central than those of ethics, metaphysics and epistemology. Another is that it raises an interpretive problem which has no analogue in the case of the other Critiques: that is, how to make sense of the work as a whole given the seeming disparity of the two parts, not only with each other, but also with the “faculty of judgment” which is the work’s ostensible focus. However, Kant’s aesthetic theory has always been extremely influential within philosophical aesthetics and the philosophy of art, and since the late 1970s there has been a rapidly expanding literature on Kant’s aesthetics within Anglo-American Kant interpretation. (Some of the growth in the literature up to 2008 is documented in Guyer 2009.) Kant’s views on natural teleology, very much neglected in comparison to his aesthetics, started to receive more attention in the early 1990s, and there has been increased interest, during the last two decades in particular, both in Kant’s view of teleology in its own right, and in its potential relevance to contemporary philosophy of biology and to other areas in philosophy. Moreover, again since the 1990s, more attention has been directed towards the project of interpreting the Critique of Judgment as a coherent whole. With increased focus on its general philosophical underpinnings, the third Critique has come to be seen not only as significant within the disciplines of aesthetics and philosophy of biology, but also as playing an important systematic role with respect to Kant’s epistemology, metaphysics and ethics, and indeed, as relevant to contemporary discussions in these, and related, areas.