h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

'tis only me again..sowy..

The book I picked up this evening to read was 'An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding.' I was actually rather nervous to do so, because I'm always afraid that philosophy will be inpossibly over my head. However, lovely Hume is quite accessible and more than that, by the way he writes, I can guess that I would have rather liked him . Anyway..I was reading along in section 1 and ran across a few sentences that were related tangentially to the conversation we had yesterday on art.

"..All polite letters are nothing but pictures of human life in various attitudes and situations; and inspire us with different sentiments, of praise or blame, admiration or ridicule, according to the qualities of the object, which they set before us. An Artist must be better qualified to succeed in this undertaking, who, besides a delicate taste and a quick apprehension, possesses an an accurate knowlege of the internal fabric, the operation of the understanding, the workings of the passions, and the various species of sentiment which discriminate vice and vritue. How painful soever this inward search or enquiry may appear, it becomes, in some measure, requisite to those, who would describe with success the obvious and outward appearances of life and manners. The anatomist presents to the eye the most hideous and disagreeable objects; but his science is useful to the painter in dilineating even a Venus or an Helen. While the latter employs all the richest colours of his art, and gives his figures the most graceful and engaging airs; he must still carry his attention to the inward structure of the human body, the position of the muscles, the fabric of the bones, and the use and figure of every part or organ. Accuracy is, in every case, advantageous to beauty, and just reasoning to accurate sentiment. In vain would we exalt the one by depreciating the other....."

I hope I don't get modded for quoting that much . Of course by now, it's probably public domain anyway. OK, while he doesn't outright define art (why should he), he does say that the 'artist' does require special insight and knowlege, as would one in any vocation. However, I'm not sure if he's implying that the resultant 'art' is to be no more exalted than the process, or just that the latter is requisite to the former. He of course goes on to speak of how philosophy would necessarily 'diffuse itself throughout the whole society' if the undertaking is approached with care. Since he's using art as a simile to validate his brand of philosophy, it's probably not appropriate to try to glean out of his text his opinions on art, since one would rely almost entirely on tone and implication; nevertheless, what do you think he would have thought?

Incidentally, I liked his optimism at the end of the next paragraph, "The stability of modern governments above the ancient, and the accuracy of modern philosophy, have improved, and probably will still improve, by similar gradations." Hey, maybe that's the source of your bouts of humanitarian drive; you read too much Hume .