2023/05/19

Sublime (philosophy) - Wikipedia

Sublime (philosophy) - Wikipedia


Sublime (philosophy)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Caspar David FriedrichWanderer above the Sea of Fog, 1817, Kunsthalle Hamburg. Romantic artists during the 19th century used the epic of nature as an expression of the sublime.

In aesthetics, the sublime (from the Latin sublīmis) is the quality of greatness, whether physicalmoralintellectualmetaphysicalaestheticspiritual, or artistic. The term especially refers to a greatness beyond all possibility of calculation, measurement, or imitation.

Since its first application in the field of rhetoric and drama in ancient Greece it became an important concept not just in philosophical aesthetics but also in literary theory and art history.[1]

Ancient philosophy[edit]

The first known study of the sublime is ascribed to Longinus: Peri Hupsous/Hypsous or On the Sublime. This is thought to have been written in the 1st century AD though its origin and authorship are uncertain. For Longinus, the sublime is an adjective that describes great, elevated, or lofty thought or language, particularly in the context of rhetoric. As such, the sublime inspires awe and veneration, with greater persuasive powers. Longinus' treatise is also notable for referring not only to Greek authors such as Homer, but also to biblical sources such as Genesis.

This treatise was rediscovered in the 16th century, and its subsequent impact on aesthetics is usually attributed to its translation into French by linguist Nicolas Boileau-Despréaux in 1674. Later the treatise was translated into English by John Pultney in 1680, Leonard Welsted in 1712, and William Smith in 1739 whose translation had its fifth edition in 1800.

Modern philosophy[edit]

The concept of the sublime emerged in Europe with the birth of literary criticism in the late 17th century.[2] It was associated with the works of the French writers Pierre CorneilleJean-Baptiste RacineJean-Baptiste l'Abbé Dubos, and Nicolas Boileau-Despréaux.[2]

British philosophy[edit]

Hahnen, Swiss Alps. British writers, taking the Grand Tour in the 17th and 18th centuries, first used the sublime to describe objects of nature.
HahnenSwiss Alps. British writers, taking the Grand Tour in the 17th and 18th centuries, first used the sublime to describe objects of nature.

In Britain, the development of the concept of the sublime as an aesthetic quality in nature distinct from beauty was brought into prominence in the 18th century in the writings of Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury and John Dennis. These authors expressed an appreciation of the fearful and irregular forms of external nature, and Joseph Addison's synthesis of concepts of the sublime in his The Spectator, and later the Pleasures of the Imagination. All three Englishmen had, within the span of several years, made the journey across the Alps and commented in their writings of the horrors and harmony of the experience, expressing a contrast of aesthetic qualities.[3]

John Dennis was the first to publish his comments in a journal letter published as Miscellanies in 1693, giving an account of crossing the Alps where, contrary to his prior feelings for the beauty of nature as a "delight that is consistent with reason", the experience of the journey was at once a pleasure to the eye as music is to the ear, but "mingled with Horrours, and sometimes almost with despair".[4] Shaftesbury had made the journey two years prior to Dennis but did not publish his comments until 1709 in the Moralists. His comments on the experience also reflected pleasure and repulsion, citing a "wasted mountain" that showed itself to the world as a "noble ruin" (Part III, Sec. 1, 390–91), but his concept of the sublime in relation to beauty was one of degree rather than the sharp contradistinction that Dennis developed into a new form of literary criticism. Shaftesbury's writings reflect more of a regard for the awe of the infinity of space ("Space astonishes" referring to the Alps), where the sublime was not an aesthetic quality in opposition to beauty, but a quality of a grander and higher importance than beauty. In referring to the Earth as a "Mansion-Globe" and "Man-Container" Shaftsbury writes "How narrow then must it appear compar'd with the capacious System of its own Sun...tho animated with a sublime Celestial Spirit...." (Part III, sec. 1, 373).[5]

Joseph Addison embarked on the Grand Tour in 1699 and commented in Remarks on Several Parts of Italy etc. that "The Alps fill the mind with an agreeable kind of horror".[6] The significance of Addison's concept of the sublime is that the three pleasures of the imagination that he identified—greatness, uncommonness, and beauty—"arise from visible objects"; that is, from sight rather than from rhetoric. It is also notable that in writing on the "Sublime in external Nature", he does not use the term "sublime" but uses semi-synonymous terms such as "unbounded", "unlimited", "spacious", "greatness", and on occasion terms denoting excess.[4]

The British description of the sublime has been described as distinct from the Kantian conceptualization, which emphasized a detachment of aesthetic judgment.[7] The British tradition is noted for its rejection of the idea that aesthetic judgment and ethical conduct are not connected. One of its positions holds that the affective register of the sublime is not divorced from the standards that govern human conduct and that it does not transcend ethical conduct.

Edmund Burke[edit]

Addison's notion of greatness was integral to the concept of sublimity. An object of art could be beautiful yet it could not possess greatness. His Pleasures of the Imagination, as well as Mark Akenside's Pleasures of the Imagination of 1744 and Edward Young's poem Night Thoughts of 1745 are generally considered the starting points for Edmund Burke's analysis of sublimity.

Edmund Burke developed his conception of sublimity in A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful of 1756.[4] Burke was the first philosopher to argue that sublimity and beauty are mutually exclusive. The dichotomy that Burke articulated is not as simple as Dennis' opposition, and is antithetical in the same degree as light and darkness. Light may accentuate beauty, but either great light or darkness, i. e., the absence of light, is sublime to the extent that it can annihilate vision of the object in question. What is "dark, uncertain, and confused"[8] moves the imagination to awe and a degree of horror. While the relationship of sublimity and beauty is one of mutual exclusivity, either can provide pleasure. Sublimity may evoke horror, but knowledge that the perception is a fiction is pleasureful.[9]

Burke's concept of sublimity was an antithetical contrast to the classical conception of the aesthetic quality of beauty being the pleasurable experience that Plato described in several of his dialogues, e. g. PhilebusIonHippias Major, and Symposium, and suggested that ugliness is an aesthetic quality in its capacity to instill intense emotions, ultimately providing pleasure.[10] For Aristotle, the function of artistic forms was to instill pleasure, and he first pondered the problem that an object of art representing ugliness produces "pain." Aristotle's detailed analysis of this problem involved his study of tragic literature and its paradoxical nature as both shocking and having poetic value.[11] The classical notion of ugliness prior to Edmund Burke, most notably described in the works of Saint Augustine of Hippo, denoted it as the absence of form and therefore as a degree of non-existence. For St. Augustine, beauty is the result of the benevolence and goodness of God in His creation, and as a category it had no opposite. Because ugliness lacks any attributive value, it is formless due to the absence of beauty.[12]

Burke's treatise is also notable for focusing on the physiological effects of sublimity, in particular the dual emotional quality of fear and attraction that other authors noted. Burke described the sensation attributed to sublimity as a negative pain, which he denominated "delight" and which is distinct from positive pleasure. "Delight" is thought to result from the removal of pain, caused by confronting a sublime object, and supposedly is more intense than positive pleasure. Though Burke's explanations for the physiological effects of sublimity, e. g. tension resulting from eye strain, were not seriously considered by later authors, his empirical method of reporting his own psychological experience was more influential, especially in contrast to the analysis of Immanuel Kant. Burke is also distinguished from Kant in his emphasis on the subject's realization of his physical limitations rather than any supposed sense of moral or spiritual transcendence.[13]

German philosophy[edit]

Immanuel Kant[edit]

Viviano Codazzi: Rendition of St. Peter's Square, Rome, dated 1630. Kant referred to St. Peter's as "splendid", a term he used for objects producing feeling for both the beautiful and the sublime.

Immanuel Kant, in 1764, made an attempt to record his thoughts on the observing subject's mental state in Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime. He held that the sublime was of three kinds: the noble, the splendid, and the terrifying.

In his Critique of Judgment (1790),[14] Kant officially says that there are two forms of the sublime, the mathematical and the dynamical, although some commentators hold that there is a third form, the moral sublime, a hold-over from the earlier "noble" sublime.[15] Kant claims, "We call that sublime which is absolutely great"(§ 25). He distinguishes between the "remarkable differences" of the Beautiful and the Sublime, noting that beauty "is connected with the form of the object", having "boundaries", while the sublime "is to be found in a formless object", represented by a "boundlessness" (§ 23). Kant evidently divides the sublime into the mathematical and the dynamical, where in the mathematical "aesthetical comprehension" is not a consciousness of a mere greater unit, but the notion of absolute greatness not inhibited with ideas of limitations (§ 27). The dynamically sublime is "nature considered in an aesthetic judgment as might that has no dominion over us", and an object can create a fearfulness "without being afraid of it" (§ 28). He considers both the beautiful and the sublime as "indefinite" concepts, but where beauty relates to the "Understanding", sublime is a concept belonging to "Reason", and "shows a faculty of the mind surpassing every standard of Sense" (§ 25). For Kant, one's inability to grasp the magnitude of a sublime event such as an earthquake demonstrates inadequacy of one's sensibility and imagination. Simultaneously, one's ability to subsequently identify such an event as singular and whole indicates the superiority of one's cognitive, supersensible powers. Ultimately, it is this "supersensible substrate," underlying both nature and thought, on which true sublimity is located.[16]

Arthur Schopenhauer[edit]

To clarify the concept of the feeling of the sublime, Arthur Schopenhauer listed examples of its transition from the beautiful to the most sublime. This can be found in the first volume of his The World as Will and Representation, § 39.

For him, the feeling of the beautiful is in seeing an object that invites the observer to transcend individuality, and simply observe the idea underlying the object. The feeling of the sublime, however, is when the object does not invite such contemplation but instead is an overpowering or vast malignant object of great magnitude, one that could destroy the observer.

  • Feeling of Beauty – Light is reflected off a flower. (Pleasure from a mere perception of an object that cannot hurt observer).
  • Weakest Feeling of Sublime – Light reflected off stones. (Pleasure from beholding objects that pose no threat, objects devoid of life).
  • Weaker Feeling of Sublime – Endless desert with no movement. (Pleasure from seeing objects that could not sustain the life of the observer).
  • Sublime – Turbulent Nature. (Pleasure from perceiving objects that threaten to hurt or destroy observer).
  • Full Feeling of Sublime – Overpowering turbulent Nature. (Pleasure from beholding very violent, destructive objects).
  • Fullest Feeling of Sublime – Immensity of Universe's extent or duration. (Pleasure from knowledge of observer's nothingness and oneness with Nature).

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel[edit]

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel considered the sublime a marker of cultural difference and a characteristic feature of oriental art. His teleological view of history meant that he considered "oriental" cultures as less developed, more autocratic in terms of their political structures and more fearful of divine law. According to his reasoning, this meant that oriental artists were more inclined towards the aesthetic and the sublime: they could engage God only through "sublated" means. He believed that the excess of intricate detail that is characteristic of Chinese art, or the dazzling metrical patterns characteristic of Islamic art, were typical examples of the sublime and argued that the disembodiment and formlessness of these art forms inspired the viewer with an overwhelming aesthetic sense of awe.[17]

Rudolf Otto[edit]

Rudolf Otto compared the sublime with his newly coined concept of the numinous. The numinous comprises terror, Tremendum, but also a strange fascination, Fascinans.

Contemporary philosophy[edit]

20th century[edit]

Maurizio BologniniSMSMS (SMS Mediated Sublime), 2000–2006, an interactive installation that aims to involve the audience in the experience of the manipulation and consumption of the technological sublime[18][19] [20]

At the beginning of the 20th century Neo-Kantian German philosopher and theorist of aesthetics Max Dessoir founded the Zeitschrift für Ästhetik und allgemeine Kunstwissenschaft, which he edited for many years, and published the work Ästhetik und allgemeine Kunstwissenschaft in which he formulated five primary aesthetic forms: the beautiful, the sublime, the tragic, the ugly, and the comic.[21]

The experience of the sublime involves a self-forgetfulness where personal fear is replaced by a sense of well-being and security when confronted with an object exhibiting superior might, and is similar to the experience of the tragic. The "tragic consciousness" is the capacity to gain an exalted state of consciousness from the realization of the unavoidable suffering destined for all men and that there are oppositions in life that can never be resolved, most notably that of the "forgiving generosity of deity" subsumed to "inexorable fate".[22]

Thomas Weiskel re-examined Kant's aesthetics and the Romantic conception of the sublime through the prism of semiotic theory and psychoanalysis.[23] He argued that Kant's "mathematical sublime" could be seen in semiotic terms as the presence of an excess of signifiers, a monotonous infinity threatens to dissolve all oppositions and distinctions. The "dynamic sublime", on the other hand, was an excess of signifieds: meaning was always overdetermined.

According to Jean-François Lyotard, the sublime, as a theme in aesthetics, was the founding move of the Modernist period.[24] Lyotard argued that the modernists attempted to replace the beautiful with the release of the perceiver from the constraints of the human condition. For him, the sublime's significance is in the way it points to an aporia (impassable doubt) in human reason; it expresses the edge of our conceptual powers and reveals the multiplicity and instability of the postmodern world.

21st century[edit]

According to Mario Costa, the concept of the sublime should be examined first of all in relation to the epochal novelty of digital technologies, and technological artistic production: new media artcomputer-based generative art, networking, telecommunication art.[25] For him, the new technologies are creating conditions for a new kind of sublime: the "technological sublime". The traditional categories of aesthetics (beauty, meaning, expression, feeling) are being replaced by the notion of the sublime, which after being "natural" in the 18th century, and "metropolitan-industrial" in the modern era, has now become technological.

There has also been some resurgence of interest in the sublime in analytic philosophy since the early 1990s, with occasional articles in The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism and The British Journal of Aesthetics, as well as monographs by writers such as Malcolm Budd, James Kirwan and Kirk Pillow. As in the postmodern or critical theory tradition, analytic philosophical studies often begin with accounts of Kant or other philosophers of the 18th or early 19th centuries. Noteworthy is a general theory of the sublime, in the tradition of Longinus, Burke and Kant, in which Tsang Lap Chuen takes the notion of limit-situations in human life as central to the experience.[26]

Jadranka Skorin-Kapov in The Intertwining of Aesthetics and Ethics: Exceeding of Expectations, Ecstasy, Sublimity[27] argues for sublimity as the common root to aesthetics and ethics, "The origin of surprise is the break (the pause, the rupture) between one's sensibility and one's powers of representation... The recuperation that follows the break between one's sensibility and one's representational capability leads to sublimity and the subsequent feelings of admiration and/or responsibility, allowing for the intertwining of aesthetics and ethics... The roles of aesthetics and ethics—that is, the roles of artistic and moral judgments, are very relevant to contemporary society and business practices, especially in light of the technological advances that have resulted in the explosion of visual culture and in the mixture of awe and apprehension as we consider the future of humanity."

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Doran, Robert (2017). The Theory of the Sublime from Longinus to Kant. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. p. 1. ISBN 978-1-107-10153-1.
  2. Jump up to:a b Costelloe, Timothy M. (2013). The British Aesthetic Tradition: From Shaftesbury to Wittgenstein. New York: Cambridge University Press. p. 4. ISBN 978-0-521-51830-7.
  3. ^ Nicolson, Marjorie Hope. Mountain Gloom and Mountain Glory. Ithaca, 1959
  4. Jump up to:a b c Nicolson, Marjorie Hope. "Sublime in External Nature". Dictionary of the History of Ideas. New York, 1974.
  5. ^ Cooper, Anthony Ashley, Third Earl of Shaftesbury. The Moralists: A Philosophical Rhapsody. 1709.
  6. ^ Joseph Addison, Remarks on Several Parts of Italy etc. in the years 1701, 1702, 1703. 1773 edition, printed for T. Walker. Chapter on ‘Geneva and the Lake’: 261 Located on Google books, accessed 11.12.07
  7. ^ Ashfield, Andrew; de Bolla, Peter (1998). The Sublime: A Reader in British Eighteenth-Century Aesthetic Theory. New York: Cambridge University Press. p. 3. ISBN 0-521-39545-3.
  8. ^ Edmund BurkeA Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful, Part 1, Section 7: "Whatever is fitted in any sort to excite the ideas of pain, and danger, that is to say, whatever is in any sort terrible, or is conversant about terrible objects, or operates in a manner analogous to terror, is a source of the sublime; that is, it is productive of the strongest emotion which the mind is capable of feeling...." In Part 2, Section 2, Burke wrote that "terror is in all cases whatsoever, either more openly or latently, the ruling principle of the sublime."
  9. ^ Monroe C. Beardsley, "History of Aesthetics", Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Volume 1, p. 27 (Macmillan, 1973). But Edmund Burke disagreed: "Nor is it, either in real or fictitious distresses, our immunity from them which produces our delight ... it is absolutely necessary that my life should be out of any imminent hazard, before I can take a delight in the sufferings of others, real or imaginary ... it is a sophism to argue from thence, that this immunity is the cause of my delight". (A Philosophical Inquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful, Part 1, Section 15)
  10. ^ Jerome Stolnitz, "Ugliness", Encyclopedia of Philosophy (McMillan, 1973).
  11. ^ Monroe C. Beardsley, "History of Aesthetics", Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Volume 1, p. 20 (Macmillan, 1973).
  12. ^ Jerome Stolnitz, "Ugliness", Encyclopedia of Philosophy (McMillan, 1973). Also, Monroe C. Beardsley, "History of Aesthetics", Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Volume 1, p. 22 (Macmillan, 1973).
  13. ^ Vanessa L. Ryan, "The Physiological Sublime: Burke’s Critique of Reason", Journal of the History of Ideas, Volume 62, Number 1 (April 2001).
  14. ^ Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Judgment. Trans. J.H. Bernard. Macmillan, 1951.
  15. ^ Clewis, Robert. 2009. The Kantian Sublime and the Revelation of Freedom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://www.cambridge.org/us/knowledge/isbn/item2326741/?site_locale=en_US
  16. ^ Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Judgment. Trans. J.H. Bernard. Macmillan, 1951. Translator's introduction and notes to the Critique of Judgment
  17. ^ Hegel, G.W.F. Aesthetics: Lectures on Fine Art. Translated by T.M. Know. Oxford: Clarendon, 1975.
  18. ^ Bolognini, Maurizio (April 2004). "The SMSMS Project: Collective Intelligence Machines in the Digital City". Leonardo37 (2): 147–149. doi:10.1162/0024094041139247S2CID 57569240.
  19. ^ Maurizio Bolognini, "De l'interaction à la démocratie. Vers un art génératif post-digital" / "From interactivity to democracy. Towards a post-digital generative art"Artmedia X Proceedings. Paris 2010.
  20. ^ The last decades of the 19th century saw the rise of Kunstwissenschaft, or the "science of art"—a movement to discern laws of aesthetic appreciation and arrive at a scientific approach to aesthetic experience: Stolnitz, Jerome. "Beauty". In Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Vol. 1, p. 266. Macmillan (1973).
  21. ^ Emery, Stephen A.. "Dessoir, Max". In Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Vol. 2, p. 355. Macmillan (1973).
  22. ^ Emery, Stephen A.. "Dessoir, Max". In Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Vol. 2, p. 356. Macmillan (1973).
  23. ^ Weiskel, Thomas. The Romantic Sublime (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1976)
  24. ^ Lyotard, Jean-François. Lessons on the Analytic of the Sublime. Trans. Elizabeth Rottenberg. Stanford University Press, 1994. Lyotard expresses his own elements of the sublime but recommends Kant's Critique of Judgment, §23–§29 as a preliminary reading requirement to understanding his analysis.
  25. ^ Mario Costa (1994) [1990], Le sublime technologique (in French), Lausanne: IDERIVE, ISBN 88-88091-85-8Mario Costa (2006), Dimenticare l'arte (in Italian), Milan: Franco Angeli, ISBN 978-88-464-6364-7.
  26. ^ Tsang, Lap Chuen. The Sublime: Groundwork towards a Theory. University of Rochester Press, 1998.
  27. ^ Skorin-Kapov, Jadranka (2016). The Intertwining of Aesthetics and Ethics: Exceeding of Expectations, Ecstasy, Sublimity. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. ISBN 978-1-4985-2456-8.

Further reading[edit]

  • Addison, JosephThe Spectator. Ed. Donald E. Bond. Oxford, 1965.
  • Beidler. P. G. ‘The Postmodern Sublime: Kant and Tony Smith’s Anecdote of the Cube’. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 53, No. 2 (Spring 1995): 177–186.
  • Brady, E. ‘Imagination and the Aesthetic Appreciation of Nature’. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 56, No. 2 (Spring 1998): 139–147.
  • Brett, R.L. The Third Earl of Shaftesbury. London, 1951. ASIN: B0007IYKBU
  • Budd, M. The Aesthetic Appreciation of Nature. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2003.
  • Burke, Edmund. A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful. London, 1958. ISBN 0-935005-28-5
  • Clewis, Robert, ed. The Sublime Reader. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2019.
  • Clewis, Robert, ed. The Kantian Sublime and the Revelation of Freedom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
  • Collingwood, R.G. The Idea of Nature. Oxford, 1945. ISBN 0-313-25166-5
  • Cooper, Anthony Ashley, Third Earl of Shaftesbury. The Moralists: A Philosophical Rhapsody, in Characteristicks, Vol. II. Ed. John M. Robertson. London, 1900.
  • Crowther, P. How Pictures Complete Us; The Beautiful, the Sublime and the Divine. Stanford University Press, 2016. ISBN 978-0-80479846-4
  • de Bolla, P. The Discourse of the Sublime. Basil Blackwell, 1989.
  • Dennis, John. Miscellanies in Verse and Prose, in Critical Works, Vol. II. Ed. Edward Niles Hooker. Baltimore, 1939–1943. ASIN: B0007E9YR4
  • Doran, Robert. ‘Literary History and the Sublime in Erich Auerbach’s Mimesis’. New Literary History 38.2 (2007): 353–369.
  • Doran, Robert. The Theory of the Sublime from Longinus to Kant. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. OCLC 959033482
  • Dessoir, Max. Aesthetics and theory of art. Ästhetik und allgemeine Kunstwissenschaft. Translated by Stephen A. Emery. With a foreword by Thomas Munro. Detroit, Wayne State University Press, 1970. ISBN 0-8143-1383-3
  • Duffy, C. Shelley and the revolutionary sublime. Cambridge, 2005.
  • Ferguson, F. Solitude and the Sublime: romanticism and the aesthetics of individuationRoutledge, 1992.
  • Fisher, P. Wonder, the rainbow and the aesthetics of rare experiences. Harvard University Press, 1999.
  • Fudge, R. S. ‘Imagination and the Science-Based Aesthetic Appreciation of Unscenic Nature’. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 59, No. 3 (Summer 2001): 275–285.
  • Gilbert-Rolfe, Jeremy. "Beauty and the Contemporary Sublime," Allworth Press, 1999.
  • Hipple, Walter John, Jr. The Beautiful, the Sublime, and the Picturesque in Eighteenth-Century British Aesthetic Theory. Carbondale, IL, 1957.
  • Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Judgment. Trans. J.H. Bernard. Macmillan, 1951.
  • Kant, Immanuel. Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime. Translated by John T. Goldthwaite. University of California Press, 2003. ISBN 0-520-24078-2
  • Kaplama, Erman. Cosmological Aesthetics through the Kantian Sublime and Nietzschean Dionysian. Lanham: UPA, Rowman & Littlefield, 2014.
  • Kirwan, J. (2005). Sublimity: The Non-Rational and the Irrational in the History of Aesthetics. Routledge, 2005.
  • Lyotard, Jean-François. Lessons on the Analytic of the Sublime. Trans. Elizabeth Rottenberg. Stanford University Press, 1994.
  • Monk, Samuel H. The Sublime: A Study of Critical Theories in XVIII-Century England. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1935/1960.
  • Nicolson, Marjorie HopeMountain Gloom and Mountain Glory. Ithaca, 1959. ISBN 0-295-97577-6
  • Navon, Mois. "Sublime Tekhelet". The Writings of Mois Navon
  • Nicolson, Marjorie Hope. "Sublime in External Nature". Dictionary of the History of Ideas. New York, 1974.
  • Noel, J. ‘Space, Time and the Sublime in Hume’s Treatise’. British Journal of Aesthetics, Vol. 34, No. 3, July 1994: 218–225.
  • Pillow, K. Sublime Understanding: Aesthetic Reflection in Kant and Hegel. MIT Press, 2000.
  • Ryan, V. (2001). 'The physiological sublime: Burke's critique of reason'. Journal of the history of ideas, vol. 62, no. 2 (2001): 265–279.
  • George SantayanaThe Sense of Beauty. Being the Outlines of Aesthetic Theory. New York, Modern Library, 1955. Pp. 230–240.
  • Saville, A. ‘Imagination and Aesthetic Value’. British Journal of Aesthetics, Vol. 46, No. 3, July 2006: 248–258.
  • Shaw, P. The Sublime. Routledge, 2006.
  • Shusterman, R. ‘Somaesthetics and Burke’s Sublime’. British Journal of Aesthetics, Vol. 45, No. 4, October 2005: 323–341.
  • Sircello, Guy, ‘How is a Theory of the Sublime Possible?’ The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 51, No. 4 (Autumn 1993): 541–550.
  • Schopenhauer, Arthur. The World as Will and Representation. Volume I. New York: Dover Press. ISBN 0-486-21761-2
  • Slocombe, Will. Nihilism and the Sublime Postmodern: The (Hi)Story of a Difficult Relationship. New York: Routledge, 2006.
  • Stolnitz, Jerome. "On the Significance of Lord Shaftesbury in Modern Aesthetic Theory". Philosophical Quarterly, 43(2):97–113, 1961.
  • Tsang, Lap Chuen. The Sublime : Groundwork towards a Theory. University of Rochester Press, 1998.
  • Zuckert, R. ‘Awe or Envy? Herder contra Kant on the Sublime’. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 61, No. 3 (Summer 2003): 217–232.

숭고 - 위키백과, 崇高

숭고 - 위키백과, 우리 모두의 백과사전


숭고

위키백과, 우리 모두의 백과사전.

미학에서 숭고위대함을 나타내는 용어로물리적도덕적지적형이상학적미적정신적, 또는 예술적인 것을 포함한다. 이 용어는 특히 계산, 측정 또는 모방의 가능성을 넘는 위대함을 나타낸다.

고대 철학[편집]

숭고에 대한 최초의 알려진 연구는 롱기누스에 기인한다. 이것은 기원과 저자가 확실하지 않지만 1세기에 쓰여진 것으로 생각된다. 롱기누스의 경우 숭고함은 특히 수사학의 맥락에서 위대하거나 고상하거나 고상한 생각이나 언어를 설명하는 것이다. 따라서 숭고한 것은 더 큰 설득력으로 경외와 존경심을 일으킨다.

근대 철학[편집]

아름다움과 구별되는 자연의 미적 특성으로서의 숭고한 개념의 발전은 18 세기 제3대 섀프츠베리 백작 앤서니 애슐리쿠퍼와 존 데니스의 저작에서 처음으로 주목을 받았다.[1]

에드먼드 버크는 숭고 개념을 발전시켰다.[2] 버크는 숭고와 미가 상호 배타적이라고 주장한 최초의 철학자였다. 숭고와 미의 관계는 상호 배타성 중 하나이지만 둘 다 즐거움을 제공할 수 있으며, 숭고함은 공포를 불러 일으킬 수 있지만 지각이 허구라는 것을 아는 것은 즐거운 것이라고 주장하였다.[3]

1764년 이마누엘 칸트는 관찰 대상의 정신 상태에 대한 그의 생각을 기록하려고 시도했다. 그는 숭고한 것이 고귀한 것, 훌륭함, 무서운 것의 세 가지 종류라고 주장했다.

게오르크 빌헬름 프리드리히 헤겔은 숭고를 문화적 차이의 표식이자 동양 예술의 특징이라고 생각했다. 역사에 대한 그의 목적론적 견해는 그가 "동양" 문화를 덜 발달되고 정치적 구조 측면에서 더 독재적이며 신의 법칙을 더 두려워하는 것으로 간주했다는 것을 의미했다. 그는 중국 예술의 특징 인 복잡한 세부 사항의 초과 또는 이슬람 예술의 패턴이 숭고의 전형적인 예라고 믿었으며 이러한 예술 형식의 탈 체화와 무형 함이 시청자에게 압도적인 미적 감각을 불러 일으켰다고 주장했다.[4]

현대 철학[편집]

20세기 신칸트 미학의 독일의 철학자와 이론가 맥스 데소어는 다섯 개 주 미적 형태(미적인 것, 숭고한 것, 비극적인 것, 추한 것, 우스운 것)를 공식화했다.[5]

장 프랑수아 리오타르에 따르면 미학의 주제로서 숭고한 것은 모더니즘 시대의 주요 특징이었다.[6] 리오타르는 모더니스트들이 인간 조건의 제약으로부터 지각자의 해방으로 미적인 것을 대체하려고 시도했다고 주장했다. 그에게 있어 숭고한 의미는 인간의 이성에서 아포리아를 가리키는 방식에 있다. 그것은 우리의 개념적 힘의 가장자리를 표현하고 포스트모더니즘 세계의 다양성과 불안정성을 드러낸다.

참고 문헌[편집]

  1.  Nicolson, Marjorie Hope. Mountain Gloom and Mountain Glory. Ithaca, 1959
  2.  Nicolson, Marjorie Hope. "Sublime in External Nature". Dictionary of the History of Ideas. New York, 1974.
  3.  Monroe C. Beardsley, "History of Aesthetics", Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Volume 1, p. 27 (Macmillan, 1973). But Edmund Burke disagreed: "Nor is it, either in real or fictitious distresses, our immunity from them which produces our delight ... it is absolutely necessary that my life should be out of any imminent hazard, before I can take a delight in the sufferings of others, real or imaginary ... it is a sophism to argue from thence, that this immunity is the cause of my delight". (A Philosophical Inquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful, Part 1, Section 15)
  4.  Hegel, G.W.F. Aesthetics: Lectures on Fine Art. Translated by T.M. Know. Oxford: Clarendon, 1975.
  5.  Emery, Stephen A.. "Dessoir, Max". In Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Vol. 2, p. 355. Macmillan (1973).
  6.  Lyotard, Jean-François. Lessons on the Analytic of the Sublime. Trans. Elizabeth Rottenberg. Stanford University Press, 1994. Lyotard expresses his own elements of the sublime but recommends Kant's Critique of Judgment, §23–§29 as a preliminary reading requirement to understanding his analysis.
======

崇高

出典: フリー百科事典『ウィキペディア(Wikipedia)』
スイス・アルプスの巨大な山塊。17世紀・18世紀には多くのイギリス人がグランド・ツアーでアルプスを越え、荒々しい風景を目の当たりにした。山塊は、当時の自然の美の観念からはかけ離れた存在であり、むしろ恐ろしいものであった。しかし安全な場所から見ている限り、巨大な山や雲から感じる恐怖は、むしろそれに対する抵抗心を起こしたり精神を高揚させたりするものだった。これにより感じる「崇高」は、当初は「美」とは異なる観念だった
スイス・アルプスの巨大な山塊。17世紀・18世紀には多くのイギリス人がグランド・ツアーでアルプスを越え、荒々しい風景を目の当たりにした。山塊は、当時の自然の美の観念からはかけ離れた存在であり、むしろ恐ろしいものであった。しかし安全な場所から見ている限り、巨大な山や雲から感じる恐怖は、むしろそれに対する抵抗心を起こしたり精神を高揚させたりするものだった。これにより感じる「崇高」は、当初は「美」とは異なる観念だった

崇高(すうこう)とは美的範疇であり、巨大なもの、勇壮なものに対したとき対象に対して抱く感情また心的イメージをいう美学上の概念である。計算、測定、模倣の不可能な、何にも比較できない偉大さを指し、自然やその広大さについていわれることが多い。

숭고(崇高)는 미적 범주이며, 거대한 것, 용장한 것에 대해 때 대상에 대해 안는 감정 또 심적 이미지를 말하는 미학상의 개념이다. 계산, 측정, 모방의 불가능한, 아무것도 비교할 수 없는 위대함을 가리키며, 자연이나 그 광대함에 대해 말하는 경우가 많다.


概要[編集]

崇高について初めて論じたのはロンギヌスであるとされる。フランスボワロー1674年に伝ロンギノス『崇高について』を翻訳したことから注目され、詩学の中心概念のひとつとなった。

18世紀になるとアイルランドエドマンド・バーク1757年の『崇高と美の観念の起源』)、ドイツイマヌエル・カント1764年の『美と崇高の感情に関する観察』;1790年の『判断力批判』)が崇高を主題的に論じた。両者の場合、崇高と美が対立するものであるとみなして、崇高の側に与している。巨大な自然災害である1755年リスボン地震も、自然の恐ろしさをヨーロッパの精神に刻み、崇高の概念を発達させた。その後はむしろ崇高を美の一種とみなす傾向がある。

19世紀ロマン主義以降は崇高はあまり注目されなくなった。リヒャルト・ワーグナーはベートーヴェン論『ドイツ音楽の精神』において、自己の音楽とベートーヴェンの音楽を、美に崇高が優越するそれだとしているが例外的であった。アドルノはその『美の理論』で、圧倒的に大いなるもの、圧倒的な力、に対する精神の抵抗が崇高には必要だとしている。しかしその際、カントも同じように捉えているとしているが、それは事実に反していて、カントにとって崇高が抵抗しているのは感覚的興味に対してのみである。

しかし、フランソワ・リオタール1994年の著書『崇高論』で取り上げるなど再び議論されつつある。自身のユダヤ主義的崇高観---多様性を限定していく精神のふるまいに対して衝撃を加えていくという挑戦的姿勢のうちに崇高を見る---からマルティン・ハイデッガーの技術主義を批判したリオタールの姿勢は、結果的にそれによって、同じく技術主義のアメリカ合衆国系の崇高観に対しても批判的に対峙することになった。このリオタールの崇高論をラカンの想像界主義の展開なのだとキャサリン・ベルシーは見ている。

参考資料[編集]

関連項目[編集]



======



Namgok Lee - 바우만의 책 ‘고독을 잃어버린 시간’

Namgok Lee - 바우만의 책 제목으로 하고 있는 ‘고독을 잃어버린 시간’은 바우만이 두 번째 쓴 편지의... | Facebook

Namgok Lee

  · 
바우만의 책 제목으로 하고 있는 ‘고독을 잃어버린 시간’은 바우만이 두 번째 쓴 편지의 제목이다.
그 내용 가운데 일부다.

“미국 <<고등교육 신문>>의 웹사이트에 한 10대에 관한 글이 올라왔다.  그는 문자 메시지를 한 달에 3000건 씩 쓴다는 데, 하루 평균 100건의 문자를 보낸다는 것이다. 
미국 10대 청소년의 최대 75%는 시간이 날 때마다 페이스북이나 마이스페이스 같은 웹사이트에 접속하는데, 뭘 그렇게들 하는지 보면... 수다를 떤다. 지금의 10대는 온라인 채팅이라는 강력한 새 약물에 빠져 있다는 게 치머만 교수의 이야기다. 청소년이든 성인이든 모든 약물 중독자는 고통스러운 금단 증상을 겪는다. 혹시 어떤 바이러스(또는 부모나 교사)로 인해 인터넷이 끊기거나 휴대전화가 실행되지 않는다면 거기에 중독된 청소년이 어떤 고통을 겪을지 우리는 충분히 상상할 수 있다.”

“워크맨의 밀봉된 소음에 의존할수록, 점점 비어가는 곁자리의 공허는 더 깊어지기만 했다. 게다가 공허에 잠겨 있는 시간이 길어질수록, 자기 자신의 근육이나 상상력 등 첨단 기술이 도래하기 전의 수단을 동원하여 공허에서 빠져 나오는 능력은 점점 쇠했다. 그러다 마침내 도래한 인터넷은 공허를 잊거나 덮게 해주었고, 그로써 공허의 독성을 해독했다.  외로움의 고문에서 벗어나기만을 바라던 이들은 이 새로운 공존 형식이 얼굴과 얼굴을 맞대고 손에 손을 맞잡던 옛날 방식보다 훨씬 더 좋다고 생각했다.
일단, 이제 더는 두 번 다시 혼자일 필요가 없다.

온라인 세상에서는 그 누구도 멀리 있지 않고 그 누구든 언제든 재까닥 불러낼 수 있다. 대화가 탐탁치 않은 방향으로 틀어질 징후가 하나라도 보이면 그대로 ‘접촉’을 끊으면 된다. 그러니 위험할 것도 변명하거나 사과하거나 거짓말할 필요도 없다.”

“이 모든 것에는 치러야할 대가가 있다. 선뜻 지불할 수 없을만큼 비싼 대가일지 모른다.  ‘상시 접속’ 중인 사람은 결코 온전하게 충분히 혼자일 수 없기에 그렇다. 또한 결코 혼자가 될 수 없는 사람은 ‘즐거움을 위해 책을 읽고, 그림을 그리고, 창 밖을 바라보고, 나 아닌 다른 사람의 세계를 상상하기가 어렵’기에 그렇다.”

“외로움으로부터 도망치는 사람은 고독의 기회를 놓친다. 사람이 생각을 ‘그러모아’ 숙고하고 반성하고 창조하는 능력, 그 마지막 단계에서 타인과의 대화에 의미와 본질을 부여하는 능력에 바탕이 되는 숭고한 조건을 잃는 것이다. 그러나 고독을 한번도 맛보지 않은 사람은 자신이 무엇을 박탈당했고 무엇을 버렸고 무엇을 놓쳤는지조차 영원히 알 수 없을 것이다.”

===

요즘 우리의 삶을 돌아보게 하는 글이다. 휴대폰을 잃어버렸을 때나 인터넷이 끊기는 상태, 카카오톡이 불통이 될 때를 생각해 보면 청소년 뿐 아니라 성인들도 상당히 깊숙이 ‘중독’되어 있는 것을 느낄 수 있다.
지하철의 풍경도 떠오른다. 누구도 군중 속에서 고독을 느낄 틈이 없다. 휴대폰 화면을 통해 ‘접속 중’이다.
고독을 피하려고 끼리끼리 만난다. 특히 퇴행적인 편가름과 팬덤 현상을 일으키는 집단적 확증편향을  인터넷의 알고리즘이 촉진한다.
‘악화가 양화를 구축한다’는 말처럼 온갖 사이비 종교나 저급한 정치 선동들이 이 공간을 잠식한다.
그러나 이런 부작용만 있는 것이 아니다. 


‘타인과의 대화에 의미와 본질을 부여하는 능력에 바탕이 되는 
숭고한 조건’을 온라인 상에서도 넓혀갈 수 있다.
면 대 면의 만남과 적절히 조화한다면 이런 기술의 발달은 큰 축복이 될 수도 있다.
인간의 ‘숭고성’을 확대하고 보편화하는데 기여할 수 있다.

아마 코로나로 인한 단절의 시대에 이런 노력들이 충분히 실험되고 진행되었을 것이다.
결국 인터넷을 비롯한 인공지능 등을 어떤 방향으로 이용할 것인가 하는 ‘인류의 지혜’가 시대의 과제로 되고 있는 것이다.

지금 호스피스 병동에 계신 장태원 선생님의 ‘노자 강의’를 매일 페북에 올려서 자연스럽게 온라인 공간에 함께 공부하는 모임이 만들어지고 나중에 직접 만나 서로 이야기를 나누던 기억이 떠오른다.

고독으로부터 ‘상시 접속’으로 도망쳐서 생각하고 교감하는 능력을 잃어갈 것인가? 
인간의 ‘숭고지향성’을 장소와 시간에 구애받지 않고 넓히고 깊게 하는 도구로  활용할 것인가?


*번역이 좀 읽기에 편했으면 하는 아쉬움이 있다.  번역도 창조라는 생각이 이 책을 읽으면서 많이 든다.