Wittgenstein And Aesthetics Essay, Research Paper
I disagree with Ludwig Wittgenstein when he states that aesthetics? draws
one? s attending to certain characteristics, to put things side by side so as to
exhibit these characteristics? because of the logic that gives birth to the ideas
that led to this statement. This logic inquiries the ability of a individual to
determine what? beauty? is, what contains the quality known as? beauty? ,
and the degrees of beauty and how they can be measured and compared. Wittgenstein
uses the metaphor of games to exemplify his points sing aesthetics and
beauty. He grounds that the thought of a common characteristic or? ingredient? being
common to all games is to simple and primitive an thought to accept. He states
? It is comparable to the thought that belongingss are ingredients of the things
which have the belongingss: e.g. that beauty is an ingredient of all beautiful
things as intoxicant is of beer and vino, and that we could hence hold pure
beauty, unadulterated by anything that is beautiful. ? ( BB 17 ) Marjorie Perloff
farther explains Wittgenstein? s thought by saying what he meant was that? ?
one can non state X is beautiful unless one has a impression of what? beauty? is in
the abstract. ? She shows that Wittgenstein believes that you must be able to
specify a quality on its ain, in respects to itself merely, before you can use
that quality to any other thing. Wittgenstein goes on to explicate by utilizing the
Grecian ideal as a theoretical account. He says that what made this ideal was the function it played
in the lives of the Grecian People. This suggests that since this ideal, this
criterion if you will, was taught so fierily that it became the norm, and therefore
the ideal. Since the great bookman of the clip ( Aristotle ) wrote with this signifier,
and the great sculpturers and creative persons were locked into this ideal, it was accepted
as the premier illustration of signifier, and was therefore accepted. To Wittgenstein, it was non
the thought of? quality? , or? ideal signifier? that motivated the tendencies of
people, but the theoretical accounts upon which these qualities were imposed. Quality itself
might every bit good non be, if aesthetics were non at that place to? pull one? s
attending? to certain things. There are certain points which could do one
admiration about the cogency of
Wittgenstein? s thoughts, nevertheless. Wittgenstein seems
to believe that quality does non be by itself, that adult male imposes the thought of
quality upon things that are deemed acceptable by the multitudes. Would this
statement still do sense if you could specify quality on its ain footings, in and
of itself? Even Wittgenstein seems to believe non, otherwise he would non hold
pointed out the really fact that this independent quantification was impossible.
But it seems that merely to turn out the being of quality, nevertheless vague,
would raise a strong uncertainty about his theory. Quality is viewed as different
things from different positions, it is true. As I see something I deem to be
beautiful, another could really good see coarseness. As I view goodness, another
can comprehend ugliness. But the fact is that as a whole, a big group of people
can ever come to a decisive determination over the differences between beauty and
ugliness. There is ever a bulk who will resolutely take the beautiful
thing. It is true that as the differences between the topics bit by bit becomes
harder and harder to see, the bulk will get down to shrivel, and the ideas
will turn closer, but that is because the sum of quality in each thing comes
closer together. As Robert Pirsig said, the cogent evidence for the being of quality
prevarications merely in this idea: take the thought of quality from anything, and that
thing will go one thing. If all aesthetic quality were removed from all of
the places in the universe, for case, shortly every individual would be have oning the
same brace of places. It would be the longest-lasting, least expensive shoe,
because there is no longer an issue of? manner? , or? colour? , or? trade name
name? to act upon the pick. The make up one’s minding factor of aesthetic quality is
gone. If you remove a thing from a state of affairs, and it changes the state of affairs by
its absence, so it can be moderately stated that that thing does be. In any
other instance, the state of affairs would hold remained the same, would it non? This might
argue to Wittgenstein that there is, so, a common factor between? joint
beef, Greek art, and German music? . What do all right nutrient, beautiful art, and
soulful music have in common? The thing that makes them good, of class.
Quality.