Between the concrete individual objects and primordial will in itself Schopenhauer places ideas. These ideas are already objects or embodiments of will, but they should not yet be individuals and thus are free of ordinary causality. Instead, Schopenhauer conceives them as paradigmatic or prototypical objects for each level in the hierarchy of embodiments of will. Adding this Platonistic layer to a pseudo-Kantian worldview is, again, no novelty and similar attempts can be found e.g. in the philosophy of Schelling.
Similarly unoriginal is Schopenhauer’s notion as to what kind of cognition is required for conceiving these ideas. When a person conceives an idea, Schopenhauer suggests, she must herself be free of her own individuality and become a pure, timeless subject, who looks upon the idea without any urges of ordinary life and without the shackles of causality. In other words, she must be an artistic genius, capable of grasping what is essential in different genera of objects. Genius, Schopenhauer says, forgets her own individuality and is completely enamoured by her vision of the idea. Thus, Schopenhauer endorses the rather romantic notion of a genius, who has a special connection to the essence of the world. Another side of Schopenhauerian genius is her complete detachment from and even ignorance of practical concerns. Schopenhauer goes even so far as to suggest that no true genius could ever understand mathematics, which is essential for explaining the level of individuals.
Note that what make genius special in eyes of Schopenhauer is her ability to envision the idea. Meaning of works of art, then, is just to convey this vision of idea to other persons, who do not happen to have the abilities of genius. A work of art should, therefore, purge its viewer from all volitions. This might happen, for instance, by the work of art describing something that is completely without any interest, say, an ordinary landscape - or, it might try to forget our individual concerns and highlight on e.g. general tragedies of human life. When volition is cancelled, what is left is distinct type of peaceful pleasure in just watching the work. This state of aesthetic observing, Schopenhauer continues, can be achieved in two different manners - through beauty or through sublimity. Beautiful object lulls will peacefully, while sublime object - such as the conflict of powerful natural forces involved in storm - forcefully submits the individual will under their spell. On the contrary, any sort of titillation is bound to be quite unaesthetic, because it will just awaken the urges of volition.
Now, all of this concerns the subjective side of aesthetic experience - that is, what the object must do to us to convey such an experience. Otherwise, the object could be of any sort, and indeed, Schopenhauer says, everything is beautiful. Of course, some objects can be better in evoking the idea they embody - for instance, humans, according to Schopenhauer, are the most beautiful among all things.
Just like many other post-Kantians, Schopenhauer wants to give a sort of hierarchy of arts, which he bases mainly on the hierarchy of objects depicted. Thus, the lowest step in the hierarchy of arts is taken by architecture, which corresponds to lowest rungs in the hierarchy of phenomena, that is, gravity, hardness and other properties characteristic of mere matter. The level of plant life corresponds to art of gardening and to landscape painting, level of animality to animal sculptures and paintings.
As I have already mentioned, the highest rank of beauty in Schopenhauer’s theory is reserved for humans. Human beauty is also most multifarious in its forms. While sculpture shows best the bodily beauty and grace of human form, painting reveals the beautiful character of humans.
The arts mentioned thus far work directly through senses - they let us directly see the idea embodied in the works of art. Thus, these fine arts should be completely apart from conceptualisation and reasoning, Schopenhauer urges, because concepts and reason have developed for pragmatic use in the world of causality, but not for conceiving ideas. Hence, sculptures and paintings should not be used for symbolising general concepts, because such symbolisms and allegories would just distract from the proper purpose of art - a conclusion Schopenhauer shares with Hegelian aesthetics.
Poetry, on the other hand, has to use a completely different method for evoking the idea, because it is based on the very concepts so foreign to idea. Poetry must use allegories, but in a reverse direction - it must use words to convey images through our imagination. Poetry has then most to do with human actions, and its apex, in Schopenhauer’s view, is tragedy, which shows the utter contradictoriness of human life and its almost inevitable ending in tears, but also its solution, namely, the resignation of one’s individual will.
Completely removed from other arts in Schopenhauerian hierarchy is music, which does not convey any idea. Indeed, music is not meant to give us any aesthetic visions, but it directly produces an emotion in us. In other words, it lets us feel the primordial will, of which idea is merely the first embodiment. Schopenhauer goes even so far as to try to find analogies between different aspects of a composition and the hierarchy of phenomenal objects - a foolhardy attempt reminiscent of German idealism.
Ei kommentteja:
Lähetä kommentti