Hume’s idea is each individual’s taste is their own so there can be no standard of judgment. On the contrary we have critics who are able to say whether something is good art or not art at all. Are these just people with enough clarity of mind to truly see what maybe the popular idea of beauty; or are they individuals who only adhere to the precedents of judgments set by an isolated group of individuals in the artistic world? If the latter is true, how do we know that these standards that have been set are not also subjective to a particular individual’s or group of individuals taste?
I agree with Hume that there could be some qualities that most of the world considers beautiful. However, I do not believe that any quality is universally beautiful. There is no one feature that transcends time and culture and is ultimately beautiful in every human beings eyes.
I agree with the idea that all sentiments are right because a sentiment is only in reference to itself: a person’s feelings. However, I believe any determination or understanding can become truth whether it has always been truth or not. This is because understandings are concepts and concepts only exist in the mind. The only people who can confirm these concepts to be true are the people who think them. Therefore, if a group of people understand something to be true then the concept is true, and so becomes a part of reality to the individuals whose truth it is. If an understanding is disproven to an individual who once thought it was true, then it is no longer an understanding. An example of this is the popular practice of blood letting as a cure all for illnesses in medieval Europe. Though modern medicine has disproven its effectiveness, it still stands that the blood letting technique was understood to be a true multipurpose medicine in those times.
No comments:
Post a Comment