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.