On Hugh Blair
non-fiction, philosophy
Published on:
August 4, 6:33amWord Count:
416Work Description
This is a non-fiction piece. It is less creative and more evaluative. Really it is just me working through my thoughts on Hugh Blair. I am interested in finding out other opinions on both the style and content. It is basically just a thesis statement right now, but I am interested in developing this concept more in the future. Wahoo!
This work is archived and isn't accepting critiques or comments. Why?
Print
Fyodor Dostoyevsky makes a keen observation regarding human nature in The Grand Inquisitor, a poem crafted by Ivan, the middle son, in The Brothers Karamazov. He states, “I tell Thee that man is tormented by no greater anxiety than to find some one quickly to whom he can hand over that gift of freedom with which the ill-fated creature is born” (264). Dostoyevsky saw in mankind a tendency to relinquish their God-given gift of free-will because, “the fearful burden of free choice…lay[s] upon them so many cares and unanswerable problems” (264). Indeed, the presence of mystery and untapped understanding may leave a man confused, making him tentative to act and also hesitant to develop his sense of taste as Hugh Blair saw it.
Blair defines taste as, “The power of receiving pleasure from the beauties of nature and of art,” (37). In his lecture on taste, Blair does not emphasize facets to which the speaker ought to attend, as most of the classical rhetoricians did, but rather examines how the audience intakes information, processes that information and the meaning they put to it regarding pleasure and beauty. In this way, Blair discusses ways in which the audience may use taste to regulate the impact of Aristotle’s modes of persuasion upon them.
Looking to Blair’s definition of taste, the development of taste is essential for individuals and society as a means of developing social constructs that are both functional and moral. However, making concrete assertions about the beautiful nature or aesthetic value of something is difficult because of the arbitrary and mysterious nature of beauty. Indeed, it is difficult to recognize, categorize and label those opinions we develop through taste. It also carries far less weight to blindly accept a social construct than to attempt to discern its true merit and the accuracy of its assertions. This is especially true when information about the social construct is limited. As such, the conclusion Dostoyevsky draws about human nature illuminates a subtle, but significant problem. People are more apt to accept the ideas and decisions of those around them, than they are to develop their own sense of taste: an important facet arming them with the ability to discern and evaluate beauty in nature and art. It is not enough for an individual to simply accept the general taste of mankind, but rather they must develop their own sense of taste through delicacy and compare that taste to the general concept developed by society to determine its correctness.
Rate This Work
Your honest rating will help the author improve, and you'll earn a little karma too.
Please log in to rate.Discussion
I forgot to go back and expound more upon citations:
It's good to include them in informational pieces, but I'd suggest including some endnotes as to which book is which (just an ISBN and a title would be fine). In the case of "The Brothers Karamazov", this is because there are hundreds of versions, I'm sure. For Blair's page citation, I have no idea what that's a citation of. It needs a title so the unfamiliar reader can find the book and then find the passage if they want to familiarize themself with it more.
Hellog Lyla, this is more something one would like to talk about rather than read - over a glass of wine perhaps. It's not exactly a well-researched academic study. And I would argue that Dostoyevski had a completely different viewpoint than Hugh Blair and that 'freedom of choice' has not much to do with 'taste', even though both terms have to be seen in the context of their time, politics, geography etc...
One of our most important gifts is the gift to think, and one of our most precious talents is the talent to express ourselves and make our own minds up about things. Then, the older you get, the more cynical you may become, but certainly the more you MUST think for yourself.
To write cleverly often is to write in the most simple form. The death of writing is jargon, be it jargon of business or academe. Sometimes you have to have the courage to say that the 'Gioconda' is not a very good painting - that officially flies in the face of everything we've been told.
Do you know the Hans Christian Andersen's tale of 'The Empreror's New Clothes'? Well, in a short version it goes like this: There once was an emperor who thought he was a really clever guy. Two fraudsters came to his court, in their hands - nothing. But they convinced the emperor (and all who didn't take the freedom to reject the lie) that they were selling him (and than making him) the most beautiful of clothes from the most beautiful and magical cloth which only stupid people couldn't see. Now since nobody wanted to be thought of as 'stupid', everyone admired the beautiful new clothes of the emperor (that's the same as falling for what we call 'taste', but basically we just follow what everyone thinks of as the 'in' thing and we don't want to be left out. How many times have I heard people admire a painting, for example, that was just the most fashionable thing on earth, while they didn't understand a thing about it, professing know-how and taste).
On the day of the big state occasion, the empreror walked through the streets, and everyone cheered, except for a little boy (still unaffected by fashion and what marketing is telling everyone) who shouted, amazed, "But the empreror doesn't wear any clothes"! And suddenly all the others saw (or agreed to see) that this was indeed the case and they hooted and laughed.
Freedom and taste, two things completely dependent on each person's context - as so many things are.
I wish we could sit around a table with a bottle of whatever you like and talk until the early hours. This is so one-sided and could be great fun.
This is an informative piece, but its confusing wording in places renders it less effective than it should be.
For instance, the first sentence is very labyrinthine and confusing. There are too many "ins" and the two works and authors mentioned might confuse people not familiar with Dostoyevsky. Instead, try changing it to something like:
I know this is a lot vaguer, but The Brothers Karamazov isn't the focus of the piece, so you don't need to be that specific about it. You also cite the page number that you're grabbing the quote from (more on this later), so your readers can go figure out for themselves what's going on, if they're so inclined.
The next problem sneaks up at the end of the first paragraph: Hugh Blair comes out of the blue and then acts like the entire piece so far has been talking about him. It's abrupt and a little bit confusing, due to the attention so far placed on Dostoyevsky. Try putting Blair right up front at the beginning of this sentence or at the beginning of the next paragarph. Thus:
This way, the reader will have a clear idea that the focus of the piece has shifted.
At the end the focus switches back to Dostoyevsky, leaving me confused about the purpose of the piece. It's titled "On Hugh Blair", but seems to only mention him to lend weight to Dostoyevsky's argument. Who's the real focus of the piece? Is it supposed to be comparitive literature analysis instead? Even if it is, it reads like you're trying to argue that Dostoyevksy was an influence on Blair or the other way around. This may very well be the case for all I know (I'd never even heard of Hugh Blair), but if it is then that should be made more clear, as well. If not (which I suspect), then try to make that more clear by making it more clear that you're focusing on either one or the other.
I'd also stress the importance of cutting down some of those labyrinthine, comma-infested sentences, but this is only a first draft so I assume you'll do that anyway.
An interesting subject, though, so I definitely look forward to a newer revision!