Nishida - matt geist

So I think im going to do my thesis for this class based on Nishida’s phenomenology. I like his, its pretty good. The basis for his argument is that, well, essentially, everything is experience. This is all experience, all the time, all occurring. In experience, there is no subject and no object. It is all one and many, all equally playing and intervening with itself and other. Okay, but we as humans, in our perception of the world, distinguish ourselves from the world, and distinguish things in the world as other than ourselves. So objective/subjective. Nishida argues, that prior to this objective/subjective distinction, one rests and exists in pure experience. In fact, one exists in pure experience almost all the time, but don’t necessarily realize it.

He makes the argument that when one is playing a violin, like really playing it, the violinist is not focused on themselves, or the violin. All they are focused on is the playing of that violin. Their focus is so in tune that both objective and subjective melt away and there is only the experience of the playing.

Nishida alludes that one can recognize the purest experience of all things in being god, but I think this is rarely found, if ever. But I’m assuming those saintly and enlightened know what hes talking about.

My only issue with Nishida for my thesis, is applying his teachings to art, rather than art to his teachings. His arguments involve art as being an aspect or example of pure experience, but he does not often talk about the intent of art. When he does, he compares it to religion claiming that htye both serve similar purposes. I think he is right in this regard. However, I would argue that art alludes to the holy or other in trying to describe the indescribable, while religions attempt to directly define the other.

I really liked my first essay I wrote for this class about the Lewis quote. I think im going to hold onto it for a while and incorporate it into my thesis. What I thought were the best part was the claim I made regarding beauty as something all encompassing and overwhelming. Like the “you” of you dissipates when one comes into contact with something beautiful. You’re just awe struck.

I think this is what art can do, and this is what the holy is.

I think Nishida is valuable in creating an argument, but is not the answer to the questions. His pure experience is a good psychological development of how one comes to understanding their presence and environment, but it does not offer conclusions to why one would produce art.