It could be said that artistic value and moral value belong to two different realms. Artistic value relates to the work, moral value to man. The sins of men can be the subject-matter of a work of art, from them art can draw aesthetic beauty. The experience of moral evil can even contribute to feed the virtue of art. As Robert Browning suggest in Fra Lippo Lippi that church principle convert art into propaganda rather than artistic expression.
Schiller fails to provide a clear analysis of the relationship between the beautiful and the sublime. His writings may allow the read to conceive the aesthetic merely as a means to a higher end, the moral state. Meaning that instead of regarding the aesthetic education as an end in itself, he invokes man to use aesthetics to try to reach the ideal. Since his work is an aesthetic object by virtue of its effect on the reader, it invokes feelings and leaves the reader free, it is also a s... ... middle of paper ... ...s relationship to philosophy and ultimately to Truth. Indeed, with his identification of the aesthetic with an ideal man, Schiller is inconsistent.
If those views are not challenged in a scientific arena, as opposed to the students’ places of worship, then the students will not see any other views as science. Our students will take this lopsided understanding into adulthood. This understanding then has the danger of becoming dogmatic to our population. The progress of science will slow down without public challenges and governmental support. Works Cited Gish, Duane T “'Scientific Creationism' Should Be Taught in Science Classrooms".
Also, power is brought by achieving duties as man, in which one presents themselves as a man with power and morals. In closing, Hobbs, Mill and Kant all have different sentiments that focus on what they subjectively believe which good composes significance. Hobbs makes an approach to the primitive importance of power, Mill focuses on the importance of pleasure physically and mentally, and Kant emphasizes his importance on dignity. With these three human goods they all make up for the other goods. Dignity must be created to fulfill pleasure and power, power is mandatory of dignity and pleasure and pleasure needs dignity and power.
It is important to Wordsworth that the author of the work express emotions that the common man can relate to. It is fundamental to Tolstoy, as with Wordsworth, that the work be accessible and understandable to all people. This is why Tolstoy supposed that music is the... ... middle of paper ... ...t. It is important that art be simultaneously accessible and enjoyable to the common man. According to Tolstoy, a work of art need not follow all of the guidelines that have been given in the past, such as Aristotle's teaching on the Unities, as long as it carries the principles of instruction and enjoyment. Tolstoy believes that the greatest of unities are the unity found in God and with one's neighbor.
This is a remarkable charge, since Hume explicitly sets out to introduce an aesthetic standard for "confirming one sentiment and condemning another." I examine Budd's arguments and conclude that Hume's position-and the empiricist tradition that it inaugurated-can withstand them. The attempt to set up a standard for assessing the merit of works of art, based upon contingent connections between these works and the sentiments (feelings of pleasure or displeasure) of spectators, was famously made by David Hume. His attempt remains the locus classicus for those philosophers who attempt to found the aesthetic judgment upon empirical, rather than a priori, grounds. I have myself given it a limited defense (1).
Marx rejects the idea that human nature consists of any certain, particular activity. He instead puts forward the idea that our human nature is a product of the society we live in (Wall, 2005). Marx accepts the notion that humans are rational, thinking things and expands upon this idea to say that humans are also creative, productive beings at their core (Sayers, 2005). Humans exercise this creativity through the productive activity of labor, which is the inspired, fulfilling means through which humans become self-actualized. Self-actualization is the process by which, “man reproduces himself not only intellectually, in his consciousness, but actively and actually, and he can therefor contemplate himself in a world he himself has created” (Wall, 2005, p. 297).
Throughout many centuries, art is portrayed as the production of an object which supply us a particular kind of pleasure. Philosophers claim that aesthetic emotion is based on perception. It can be determined by an individual’s focus on a specific object. Bell defines art as significant form whereas Tolstoy defines art as communication of feelings. Bell believed all objects provoke aesthetic emotion by the elements of an artwork but Tolstoy would disagree.
The three way dialogue which may exist between nature, religion, and man, only occurs when man decides to live in harmony with nature. This means to be like nature: to give like the sky father, to produce in compassion like the mother earth, and to control ourselves, being a vessel for God. To conclude, Eliot argues that the truth man finds in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Christianity is reflective of nature. If man has any hope of living in the natural world, he must do the same. Otherwise man is doomed to inhabiting the waste land.
“I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life; and see if I could learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived”.Here in this essay, it is divided into two parts exploring the two various extracts from Emerson and Thoreau. Both these textsexchange individual views on the relationship between Man and Naturebut I would like to focus more on the similarities than the differences of this relationship. The opening lines “I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life….” from the extract “Where I lived, and what I lived for” by Thoreau represents clearly the relationship between man and nature as it not only questions the place of dwelling (nature) and the meaning of life (philosophical) but also refers to the basic amenities of man like food and shelter. Thoreau comes back to nature to live in accordance and appreciate what it has to offer. It seems here that the purpose of life is to live and not be distracted elsewhere and later regret this sole purpose of living.