Term
Paper
David Hume’s Of The Standard
of Taste
Submitted
by:
Jemima
Justin
I
MA ECL
CUK,
Kasaragod
Enlightenment was a period of
tremendous changes in Europe from around 1680 till the end of 18th
century. There was a great shift from the irrational and superstitious beliefs
imposed by the authority of church during the medieval age to an era of humans
believing in their own thinking capacity and began to have immense belief in
innate ideas and potentials. The different outlooks of the Enlightenment
thinkers varied from rationalism to empiricism to rational skepticism and
naturalism. John Locke and George Berkeley were the exponents of empiricism.
Empiricists grounded their knowledge or opinion on experiments; they must be
verifiable an demonstrable. Skepticism questioned those unempirical knowledge
or opinions which were considered facts. Radical skepticism was an extreme
which maintained a position that knowledge is something impossible.
David Hume was a Scottish Philosopher and
Historian. Hume came into the scene of literary criticism and philosophy
developing the empiricist works of his predecessors John Locke (1632- 1704) and
George Berkeley (1685 – 1753). Hume was against the rationalist belief in
innate ideas; Hume believed that knowledge derived from experiences. His
thoughts moved much beyond the empiricism and reached a position of radical
skepticism. David Hume was not only influenced by the theories of Berkeley and
John Locke, but also by the philosophy of Francis Hucheason.
One of the prominent questions of 18th
century empirical tradition was that what
is out there which causes us to respond with aesthetic approbation? The
empiricists of the period didn’t recognize beauty as a quality for objects.
According to Locke, only primary qualities remained in external objects and
these primary qualities didn’t include sensory qualities like colour, voice,
taste etc. The correct collaboration of these primary qualities caused the idea
of even that of senses.
Analyzing Of the Standard of Taste:
Hume being a good empiricist observes that a
great variety of taste and opinion is prevailing in the world. This great
variety which is observable even in a group of acquaintances is irrespective of
the similarity in their culture, their customs, their religion, language or any
other social backgrounds. This difference in taste is such a greater reality. While
some people tend to judge morality on the basis of sentiment, some others do it
on the basis of reason. Here itself occur the great difference in judgment.
The unanimity in moral values is
something much apparent than being real. Certain terms are positively validated
universally like humanity, justice etc. But the
interpretation and application of these terms vary in different
cultures. What is justice in some culture may become injustice in some other.
Homer praises his Achilles and Odysseus as heroic and prudent while these
heroism and prudency are backed with elements of cruelty and fraudness. But
Fenelon describe Odysseus’s son Telemachus, he is not like his father but true
to bone and never was ready to part away with his nobility. Here Hume looks
into Koran, the holy book of Islam to prove his argument, but negatively. But
Hume’s argument can’t be considered politically correct, especially his contention
that Koran is a wild and absurd performance. There are no details about Hume’s
knowledge in Arabic or in Koran but still he criticizes the Prophet. He says
that actually the Prophet is bestowing praises on actions like treachery,
inhumanity etc which are considered by the civilized society (or more clearly
the Western society) as utterly incompatible. He says that thus differing
meanings are attached to same term in different cultures or in different societies
and hence the variations in observations. So there is no universal morality,
morality becomes arbitrary. Hume claims that this same kind of reasoning is
applicable in aesthetics to. All art works are expressions of sentiments, some
may get approval by some people and not by some others. So there is no universal
standard for good or bad in art.
According to Hume’s reasoning there
should not be any standard for taste. But after his reasoning Hume comes up
with some non-skeptical claims. He says that the desire for a standard of taste
is only natural and it is possible also. Such a standard of taste can reconcile
the difference in sentiments and there by taste of individuals. This will help
to prefer one better than others.
But some skeptical philosophers are
against this idea of standardization. They say such standardization is
impossible. There reason is that there is a wide difference between sentiment
and rational judgment. One same object can receive a thousand varieties of
sentiments. No sentiment could be called wrong because none of the sentiment
represent the reality in the observed object. But from thousand opinions or
judgments one can be chosen as right. Factual disputes can be solved using
reasonable facts. Taste is subjective as it is a product of sentiment.
According to Hume, beauty does not
exist in the object of observation but in the minds which appreciate the
object. Each mind have different beauty concepts and so seeking real beauty or
real deformity is like seeking real sweet or real bitter; something fruitless.
The difference in disposition of organs would make the same object sweet and
bitter. But all the time this is not the case. Hume compares Ogilby to Milton
and Bunyan to Addison. He say that such criticisms which assert an equality of
genius and elegance among these writers is absurd and ridiculous. It is such an
extravagant paradise. This is considered a proof to the need for some standard
to measure the quality of a work of art.
Rules based on reasoning cannot be
a base to evaluate artistic works as they too have the same foundation of science,
which is experience. General observations are there concerning what has been
universally found to please in all countries and ages. One should not apply
strict rules to artistic works; they will reduce the artistic expression and
prevent the easy flow of imagination. This will result only in dull works. But
still he doesn’t deny the need of some rules which confine an artistic
expression. But these rules must be something which the author or artist
acquire through genius or through observation. Rules of composition can be
generalizations of what is accepted if the standard of taste bases on
experience and derived from the observations of common sentiments. Even if
there are great varieties of tastes, certain works or artists seems to get a
common acceptance through ages and places. Homer is an example quoted by Hume.
So a chance for developing a standard of taste becomes possible, which is a
contradiction to the belief of skeptical philosophers.
There comes the question of whether
reconciliation on the disagreement of tastes is possible? Hume seeks ways for
this reconciliation of experience of aesthetic objects. His goal is to
standardize the true judgment of taste to explain why particular things are
getting universal agreement.
Hume defines a critic or puts
forward the criterions for a true critic like he must be able to distinguish
different properties of a composition and how things work together. This
ability or delicacy could be there only if the organs are so fine and so exact
to perceive every ingredient of composition. One must have strongly developed
senses of mind and body. If a universal standard of taste exists, this standard
must lay in conformity with the experience based judgments of men whom we can
call critics. So a true critic will get the ability of actual judgment only
through experience. The practice of comparing two works of art on the basis of
their virtues and faults and marking one as good and other as bad makes a
critic more experienced and to be authoritative. But one cannot be a critic
with a prejudistic mind. He should first analyze qualities and forms and then
should compare. It was already mentioned that for a work of art to meet the
standards of taste, it should be considered an accepted work through ages and
places. Therefore Hume concludes that to judge some art work, there should be a
general agreement among the critics all over the world in every age.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abrams, M. H. A Glossary of Literary
Terms. Wadsworth: Cengage, 2012. Print
Habib, M. A. R. A History of Literary Criticism: From Plato to the
Present. New Delhi: Blackwell, 2006. Print
Leitch, Vincent B. “Hélène Cixous.” The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism.
Ed. Vincent B. Leitch. 2nd ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2010.
1938-41. Print
No comments:
Post a Comment