Buddha's quote (above) on skepticism could very well describe Hume's antinomy regarding art. On one hand, we (naturally) seek an objective definition of art and its goodness. A universal standard must exist-to some extent- in order to label something as art. On the other hand, the words your own suggest some degree subjectivity based upon experience--from which this reason and common sense are derived. In other words, there we must know what we are looking for but the only way that we will find it is through experience. Moreover, what one considers good art is further determined through individual taste based upon both subjective (past and present) experience and a universally accepted objective agreement. While both skeptics and empiricists are weary of anything which cannot be observed (ie. the "cause" of snow as discussed in class), I do agree with what we have discussed throughout the semester: that the objective cannot exist without a subject to observe it and the subjective would not exist without something objective to trigger taste. Is it all circular?
No comments:
Post a Comment