Reid, Louis Arnaud

2019-02-15T14:18:03Z

2019-02-15T14:18:03Z

1931

The results of the experimental psychology of aesthetics, then, must be received critically, though open-mindedly, by philosophy, and aesthetics cannot for this reason be identified with a part of experimental psychology. The second remark= (b) which may be made, is that aesthetics cannot be identified with psychology (or with any part of it) because psychology is concerned with processes of mind, whilst the field of aesthetics contains more than this, Aesthetics is concerned also with objects and products. It concerns the things which we call beautiful, ugly, sublime, or ridiculous, and so on. With these objects pure psychology could, by the definition of its nature, have nothing to do. The nature of objects is, however -in a certain sense the proper subject- matter of philosophy: it is called ontology. So again there arise problems of the relation of object to the subject. These again fall outside psychology, but they are the very sphere of `epistemology', or the theory of knowledge. Logical questions there are, too, in aesthetics, as when it is said that tragedy is the expression of the `universal'. Investigation in aesthetics, again, is essentially philosophical in that it treats these various problems not as separate, not as strictly speaking isolable, but as in relation to one another. The chief and the fundamental aim of philosophy -in aesthetics or anywhere else is truth. But philosophical aesthetics, like other philosophy, may in the long run affect our feelings and.may affect practice. I have tried to show that the critic, i he is to be a complete critic, must call upon the aid of philosophy. Not only the intellectual explanations of the critic, however, but critical appreciation itself, may in the end be affected by philosophy. For aesthetic experience, as we have said, is not mere feeling ; it is knowledge. And into knowledge there enters at any moment a vast complexity of assumptions and presumptions and past judgments. This needs little, if any, argument, since we all admit that aesthetic appreciation may be trained, and training means the direction of attention upon essentials which are in turn determined for us partly by analysis.. As in the realm of perception we `see' the snow to be cold, so in the realm of aesthetic experience we may be said to see the thing in this or that way, because of a certain history, a certain training, a certain tradition, which is partly determined at every point by some sort of reflection. And if the reflection has been profound and thoroughgoing and true, surely the actual vision will be clarified? Pater is mistaken when he assumes that the only aim of trying to define is to help us to enjoy better; for definition, where possible, is a good in itself. It is overwhelmingly probable, however, that Pater is not only wrong in this assumption, but he is also wrong when he says that definitions help us very little to enjoy the best things hi art and poetry. Definitions, to repeat, are no substitute for taste, but surely definitions, when they have become assimilated into our minds, must in some sense, and in time, qualify the thing we call taste? If this is true of appreciation, why should it not be true even of art -production itself? Of course, as we have said, the artist does not act in this or that way because he (consciously) thinks that a theory demands it. But surely even the artist, like the critic, is influenced by theories? We tend to accept grudgingly of the idea that the artist can ever be helped by theories. And yet we are very ready to admit that his work is apt to be influenced by bad theories. For example, Wordsworth. But if bad theories affect, so may good theories affect. Why not as good theories as can be found. Let us rid ourselves, then, of lingering prejudices. It is high time to be quit of irritating and elementary confusions about functions. There is no reason in the world why artists and critics and philosophers should not live peaceably and profitably together under the wide roof of heaven. As for aesthetic philosophy in particular, it is possible, necessary, good in itself, and probably, after many days, aesthetically useful. Let us see for ourselves what its problems really are.

http://hdl.handle.net/1842/33654

The University of Edinburgh

Annexe Thesis Digitisation Project 2019 Block 22

Aesthetics

A study in aesthetics

Thesis or Dissertation

Doctoral

DLitt Doctor of Letters