A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful

by Edmund Burke

In his Enquiry Edmund Burke overturned the Platonic tradition in aesthetics and replaced metaphysics with psychology. His revolutions in method and sensibility influenced later philosophers and literary and artistic movements from the Gothic novel to Romanticism and beyond. This new edition guides the reader through Burke's arguments.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Classics, Art, 18th Century, Essays, Theory

154 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1757

About the author

After A Philosophical Inquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful , aesthetic treatise of 1757, Edmund Burke, also noted Irish British politician and writer, supported the cause of the American colonists in Parliament but took a more conservative position in his Reflections on the Revolution in France in 1790.

Edmund Burke, an Anglo statesman, author, orator, and theorist, served for many years in the House of Commons as a member of the Whig party. People remember mainly the dispute with George III, great king, and his leadership and strength. The latter made Burke to lead figures, dubbed the "old" faction of the Whig against new Charles James Fox. Burke published a work and attempted to define triggering of emotions and passions in a person. Burke worked and founded the Annual Register, a review. People often regard him as the Anglo founder.

Reviews

[Bill Kerwin · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting early essay by the father of modern conservatism on the sublime and beautiful and how they differ. Thoughtful and occasionally entertaining. The 18th century prose--like most 18th century prose--is excellent.

[Josh · Rating 2 out of 5]

I think this is rather poor philosophy. Essentially, Burke is just listing empirical psychological generalisations. He says beautiful things are: smooth, small, mild, clear, etc. This is debatable in itself, but my larger problem with it is that it doesn't really go anywhere or tell us anything. Why do we find such things beautiful? What is the nature of beauty, and where does it come from? These questions are not answered by Burke. The closest we get to a definition of beauty is that it makes us feel affection. This is hardly sufficient.

His treatment of the sublime is a little better. He says that the sublime comes from fear and terror, that is converted into feeling of delight or astonishment. This fear and terror comes from the vastness, darkness, etc, of the object. Imagine peering over a chasm - there is fear that you could be in danger of falling, yet there is also a feeling of delight at the sheer scale of what you see. It fills the mind, as Burke says.

I still dislike this method of treatment, though. Again, it is all simply a list of empirical generalisations and observations from a rather primitive psychological viewpoint. I suppose it is to be expected, considering Burke's philosophical tradition.

[The Literary Chick · Rating 4 out of 5]

An elegant work that expresses in words feelings and emotions that you knew but could never quite articulate.

[John Kulm · Rating 5 out of 5]

I didn’t completely agree with the ideas in this booke, but I rate it five stars because it made me think and it showed me ways of seeing that I didn’t notice before. He must have been quite the extrovert personality type, because he entirely associated the sublime and beautiful with external objects – things for the five senses - and he said nothing about beauty being in the eye of the beholder.

Burke mainly equates the sublime with “terror,” and contrasts it with beauty which he equates with things that inspire us to love. I can remember a time when love woke me up psychologically. When love failed to continue, the sublime aspects of my anguish continued to wake me up psychologically. So, both ends of the spectrum should be embraced: beauty and love versus the sublime, terror, fear, anguish, impressiveness.

This is where I felt disagreement, because every time he associated the sublime with terror, I wanted to remind myself that sublime is also associated with other things like being impressed, amazed, awe-struck, and even anguished. There is a terror-association in all those, but there’s a problem with contrasting terror with beauty: The contrast makes us want to avoid the sublime. Modern thought contrasts love with fear, and encourages us to avoid fear, but if we contrast love-as-beauty with terror-as-sublimity, we can see that the sublime has a wonderful place. Burke writes about such things as the awesome-ness of mountains and the darkness of heavy forests as being sublime and terror-striking. There’s wonder in this, and it’s heaps more interesting than the modern tendency to avoid fear in favor of love.

“Beauty” is what made me want to read this book, because I wanted to get a clue about what poets and artists mean when they speak so highly of beauty, and… okay, I get it now.

I also understand now, from this book, that being awake psychologically can come from beauty – being in love – as much as from the sublime, being anguished and impressed-upon. Although that wasn’t Burke’s purpose in writing it, that’s what I got from the book.

Here are some quotes from A Philosophical Inquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful:

“Sympathy: It is by the first of these passions that we enter into the concerns of others; that we are moved as they are moved, and are never suffered to be indifferent spectators of almost any thing which men can do or suffer. For sympathy must be considered as a sort of substitution, by which we are put into the place of another man, and affected in many respects as he is affected; so that this passion may either partake of the nature of those which regard self-preservation, and turning upon pain may be a source of the sublime. … It is by this principle chiefly that poetry, painting, and other affecting arts, transfuse their passions from one breast to another, and are often capable of grafting delight on wretchedness, misery, and death itself.”

“On closing this general view of beauty, it naturally occurs, that we should compare it with the sublime; and in this comparison there appears a remarkable contrast. For sublime objects are vast in their dimensions, beautiful ones comparatively small; beauty should be smooth, and polished; the great, rugged and negligent; beauty should shun the right line, yet deviate from in insensibly; the great in many cases loves the right line, and when it deviates, it often makes a strong deviation; beauty should not be obscure; the great ought to be dark and gloomy; beauty should be light and delicate; the great ought to be solid, and even massive. They are indeed ideas of a very different nature, one being founded on pain, the other on pleasure.”

“I have before observed, that whatever is qualified to cause terror, is a foundation capable of the sublime; to which I add, that not only these, but many things from which we cannot probably apprehend any danger have a similar effect, because they operate in a similar manner. I observed too, that whatever produces pleasure, is fit to have beauty engrafted on it.”

[Mehmed Gokcel · Rating 4 out of 5]

Some words that come to mind when describing this book are: eloquent, overwhelming, thought-provoking, confusing, and "what have I just read?" On face value, the author seems to be merely defining and distinguishing the words, beautiful and sublime. The title is pretty self-explanatory and the book does what one would anticipate from it. But well into the book, it becomes clear that there must be a larger plot. Edmund Burke lays out our role in society and the way our passions work as in a congruence with the divine insertion of the innate capacity to perceive beauty and to be drawn to the Sublime - which is defined as a terrifying, awe-inspiring notion. The sublime is an experience that is so beyond the experience of the mundane 'beautiful' that it carries us away from the world of images and clarities to the world of feelings and intense emotions. Burke shows that our pleasures for what is beautiful (worldly) cannot come near the "delight" felt by the sublime (unworldly), Godly experience... The book has made me contemplate the standards of my taste and made me question the nature of my relationship to the most sublime being, God.

[Mia · Rating 2 out of 5]

I read Frankenstein side by side and it was fun looking at the parallels. Mary Shelley made perfect application of Burke's theory on the workings of passions related to sublime. The essays will be brooding for a reader, maybe give certain amusing insights, but to a writer alone they're of any real value. The language was simple, although sometimes odious, but didn't reveal ways in which they could be applied in literature. Burke points out the obvious (or hidden, which he reveals through obvious examples) but doesn't reveal any ways outwardly how they can be used in literature by his contemporary writers.

2.5 stars. 💙 Heart.

[Preetam Chatterjee · Rating 4 out of 5]

Some books are not meant to be read—they are meant to be wrestled with, like ancient dragons curled up in the footnotes of time. Edmund Burke’s Enquiry was one such beast. I had just finished my 12th boards in 1998, armed with youthful arrogance and an old borrowed copy of Burke’s treatise. I thought I was ready. The book disagreed.

Within the first few pages, I was overwhelmed—not by the language alone, but by the weight of Burke’s distinctions. The beautiful was gentle, elegant, smooth—almost feminine. The sublime, on the other hand, was terrible, vast, masculine—invoking awe and terror. It wasn’t just aesthetics; it was a metaphysical mood swing. My teenage brain blinked.

I dropped the book, but I didn’t forget.

Cut to 2001, the world post-9/11, I was preparing for my graduation finals. The world felt sublime—dangerous, unknowable. And suddenly Burke began to make sense. I returned to the Enquiry not as a student but as a pilgrim. This time, I read slowly, carefully, sometimes aloud. I underlined. I argued. And I conquered.

Burke taught me that beauty soothes, but sublimity stirs—and to live, really live, one must embrace both. That’s when philosophy stopped being a subject and became a weather.

As Burke himself said:

"Terror is in all cases whatsoever, either more openly or latently, the ruling principle of the sublime."

And I finally knew what that meant.

[Chris brown · Rating 2 out of 5]

If you are into philosophy enough to find this obscure book on your own then you probably would be better off not reading it. It is a very well written, very well thought out work, but at points can be extremely repetitive and short.There are sections where you would hope that Burke would go into vast detail but he only offer a paragraph or two while there are sections that continue on for pages leaving you to question,

"why?"

At times i also found Burke sounding as if he was giving a scientific report on things that in truth can not now nor have ever been able to be comprehended by science let alone measured.

I found part five, which dealt with the words very thought intriguing, it however was not worth reading through the other four to obtain. Part two section two on terror highly quotable as well as all of Part one.

Overall I would say if you do find this book and would like to give it a go, Read part one then skip to part five and rest your worry because you are not missing anything.

[Stine]

ordentlig snork....

[Moh. Nasiri]

ادموند برک و هیبت هولناک جهان
ادموند بِرک درباره پدیده‌های عظیم و تجربه مواجهه انسان با هیبت هولناک جهان می‌پردازد. وقتی فرد خود را در برابر هستی ناچیز حس می‌کند.
ویدیوی ارزشمندی توسط دکتر ایمان فانی درباره معرفی این کتاب از سری مدرسه زندگی تقدیم می گردد
https://persianschooloflife.com/%D8%A...

[Laura Petersen]

Edmund Burke, professional yapper.

[Foley Stocks · Rating 2 out of 5]

It's hard to describe this beyond simply: it's ok.

In the immediate sense, the text is quite welcoming: simply looking at form, we see quite an exhaustive contents page quite cohesively displaying the various sections - the comprehensive nature of it makes it so that it is made easier to follow the lines of argument Burke makes, and observe the way in which he sees one or the other point lead onto the next, and their inter-relatedness. So, in this sense, the general reading experience has its merits. Furthermore, Burke's own use of language is not particularly convoluted (though dramatic as it is), and so it further lends itself to being quite a digestible text.

There are definitely issues I take with many claims he makes in the text itself, however.
First of all, it is important to note that Burke indeed makes some interesting points, which are not entirely useless: for example, the majority of Part I is very agreeable, starting by claiming that the "first and simplest emotion which we discover in the human mind, is Curiosity." (Part I, Sect. I) And from this moving towards Pain and Pleasure, which sees Burke reject Locke's notion, as seen in Essay Concerning Human Understanding, that pain and pleasure are co-existent, and the removal of one promotes the other,

I am rather inclined to imagine, that pain and pleasure in their most simple and natural manner of affecting, are each of a positive nature, and by no means necessarily dependent on each other for their existence. The human mind is often, and I think it is for the most part, in a state of neither pain or pleasure, which I call a state of indifference. (Part I, Sect. II)

And after this, which is a point I would be in fact inclined to agree with, Burke expands outwards from the individual towards the Society, during which he outlines this idea of Sympathy with others, followed by Imitation of others (his clear influence from Locke's view of human understanding is evident), and then the necessity of Ambition,

if men gave themselves up to imitation entirely, and each followed each other, and so on in an eternal circle, it is easy to say that there never could be any improvement amongst them. (Part I, Sect. XVII)

(Though he draws here a claim that makes sense, and which makes a distinction between the collective and the individual role, he also just sort of claims kind of haphazardly that "God has planted in man a sense of ambition")
On grief, Burke says something interesting:

The person who grieves, suffers his passion to grow upon him; he indulges it, he loves it [...] That grief should be willingly endured, though far from a simply pleasing sensation, is not so difficult to be understood. It is the nature of grief to keep its object perpetually in its eye, to present it in its most pleasurable views, to repeat all the circumstances that attend it, even to the last minuteness; to go back to every particular enjoyment, to dwell upon each, and to find a thousand new perfections in all, that were not sufficiently understood before; in grief, the pleasure is still the uppermost. (Part I, Sect. V)

This is an interesting observation: the contents of grief that it its essential character is in fact not one of pain, at least not as defined here, but rather of pleasure; we know that for Burke the privation of pleasure is not equal to pain, and grief arises when the object of pleasure is lost without chance of return - still, the primary contents is the pleasure aspect.
Beyond this, however, and perhaps a couple other moments like this, there is not really much else particularly striking here; and in fact, there are places that are simply bad.

Burke's conception of 'Beauty', as outlined in this work, I find to be particularly dubious.
To examine it, let's first of all look at Burke's own recap in Part III:

First, to be comparatively small. Secondly, to be smooth. Thirdly, to have a variety in the direction of parts; but fourthly, to have those parts not angular, but melted as it were into each other. Fifthly, to be of a delicate frame, without any remarkable appearance of strength. Sixthly, to have its colours clear and bright; but not very strong and glaring. Seventhly, or if it should have any glaring colour, to have it diversified with others. (Part III, Sect. XVIII)

Burke claims that fitness is not the cause of beauty, or that the utility of one's components is not denoting beauty - he then gives the examples of pigs and pelicans and monkeys, which are efficient in their composition, but do not evoke that sense of beauty. Yet is this not such a distinctly arbitrary category, then? If we reduce beauty away from these methods of verification, then surely it is just purely determined by a 'feeling' - such a subjective nature being purely anecdotal, then. What excludes a pig or a monkey from being beautiful? Just a 'feeling'? As we know from the Introduction: On Taste, Burke wishes to arrive at some objective notion of such a category: yet he presupposes that these animals are not seen by the reader as beautiful, which only arises from a subjective viewpoint; yet he still wants to categorise them precisely outside the realm of beauty with these 'objective' principles, which he has arrived at by observing them in those things which he already presupposes to not be beautiful! Where do we start from? Are we trapped in a tautology?
Looking further, he claims this about smoothness, that it is

A quality so essential to beauty, that I do not now recollect anything beautiful that is not smooth. (Part III, Sect. XIV)

This is kind of an absurd supposition; what is smooth? Take, for example, a furry creature, like a cat, or even one that is prickly, like a hedgehog: is the fur, or the spikes, being not flatly smooth, denoting an object without beauty? Yet we generally do not regard cats or hedgehogs as not beautiful, and most in fact regard them as beautiful and pleasing. Should we then subsume those features under the idea of 'smoothness' because of its softness to touch, in the case of fur, or the slickness of a hedgehog's spikes? In this case, we are simply creating our own definition to define a property of objects: in essence, 'beautiful objects are smooth; what is smooth?; smooth is an property beautiful objects have; why is smooth such a property that its presence in objects denotes beauty?; because objects of beauty are smooth.' Once again, Burke's treatment of beauty can almost be viewed tautologically, it appears.
There are other points of contention, such as his presupposition in Part III, Sect. XVI that various natural features in forests, such as trees, are not objects of beauty - there are many people who refer to these features as in fact very beautiful, the 'beauty of nature', even, and he exposes, one might say, the arbitrary nature of this category. But at the end of this part, Burke says this, somewhat absurdly:

On closing this general view of beauty, it naturally occurs that, that we should compare it with the sublime; and in this comparison there appears a remarkable contrast. (Part III, Sect. XXVII)

What luck! I am almost convinced that Burke is being deliberately dishonest here - it feels as though, with the aforementioned contentions, Burke sees the category of the sublime, and he wished to place the beautiful as this neat category in contrast with it; and so we see this arbitrariness masked as categorical dissection through enquiry.

A final point I wish to make that I find issue with is the strange treatment of women in the text. Perhaps merely a product of the time in which it was written, the addition of women, seen almost as objects in themselves, calls into question much of the other observations Burke makes, particularly on beauty. In Part I, he says this:

There are two sorts of societies. The first is, the society of sex. The passion belonging to this is called love, and it contains a mixture of lust; its object is the beauty of women. (Part I, Sect. XVIII)

This passage seems to betray a certain archaic nature of Burke's writing: women are immediately presumed to be the object of desire, and they are treated fundamentally as that object, for the consumption of the subject - they are presupposed, at least in this regard, as secondary to men, and no recognition is awarded to their individual subjectivity. In speaking on aesthetic questions, particularly ones so purely human, one would be remiss to discount the participation and understanding of a large percentage of our population.

Overall, this text is not entirely useless, and the majority of it is simply mediocre, or rather it does not evoke any striking feeling in particular, good or bad. Yet there are those issues that overshadow much of the work, and moments of genius are kept to a harsh minimum.

[Joe · Rating 4 out of 5]

As evident from the title of the book, Burke questions and interprets the Sublime and Beautiful. Namely, how it affects the individual, and possible reasons for the consequent feelings. This latter point, in my opinion, is where Burke starts to think much more as Psychologist, and begins to link the mind-body relationship; for him, they are greatly connected.
Part One begins with Burke highlighting the Novelty of life, its decline through life, and the inability for mere Novelty to excite the mind: “In short, the occurrences of life, by the time we come to know it a little, would be incapable of affecting the mind with any other sensations than those of loathing and weariness, if many things were not adapted to affect the mind by means of other powers besides novelty in them, and of other passions besides curiosity in ourselves.”
This is followed by his presenting of Pain and Pleasure, not as a spectrum, but as both individual spectrums both with ‘indifference’ as the neutral point. Burke defines indifference as the “state neither of pain or pleasure”.
This continues throughout Part 1, with multiple examples such as Joy and grief. One particular example, which I believe is where he first introduces a ‘psychological’ aspect, is his understanding that passions which concern self-preservation rely on pain or danger. This includes ideas of pain, sickness and death. This is contracted by the small affect that “life” and “health” have on the individual. This latter idea initialises his ideas of “The Sublime”; huge, immeasurable, infinite, dangerous, dark/obscure, loud.

A mention is made of his other ‘passion’ category: Society. In short, it is the passions arising from gratifications and pleasure. This contrasts self-preservation, which arises from pain and danger. I will not talk any more about this as I believe it was just Burke’s way of creating a ‘universal’ idea.
Part Two focus on the idea of the Sublime. The prerequisites, previously mentioned, are explained in this chapter. Astonishment, he thinks, is “the effect of the sublime in its highest degree; the inferior effects are admiration, reverence, and respect”. Although he doesn’t actually directly tackle astonishment, he attributes it to factors such as Privation of darkness, solitude and silence. This lack of, which Burke recognises to cause obscurity, is a key factor in the feeling of the Sublime. The thought of obscurity also plays a vital role in Beauty; but in this case, it is the completeness.
A particular prerequisite for the Sublime, which I feel is perhaps one of the most important; Kant will agree, is the idea of Vastness: “Greatness of dimension is a powerful cause of the sublime. This is followed by the idea of Infinity: “Infinity has a tendency to fill the mind with that sort of delightful horror, which is the most genuine effect, and truest test of the sublime.[…] But the eye not being able to perceive the bounds of many things, they seem to be infinite, and they produce the same effects as if they were really so. We are deceived in the like manner, if the parts of some large object are so continued to any indefinite number, that the imagination meets no check which may hinder its extending them at pleasure.”
Part Three outlines the idea of Beauty. In broadest terms, the essentials are: smoothness, paleness, symmetry, smallness, and gentle curves.
Interestingly, he disagreed with the notion of proportions being a cause of beauty. Using somewhat strange metaphors, such as the proportions seen in vegetables and different species of Birds, he presents that we [humans] do not find universal proportions beautiful, and that they differ with everything we see. Burke also disagrees that the fitness (adaptability) of an animal causes it to be seen as beautiful. He presents his rationale by giving examples such as the swine.

Having moved away from these factors, he focuses on properties of the object. This is important as he locates the qualities of beauty in the things themselves, rather than the object is beautiful because the perceiver views it to be.
One particular example for the effect of Gradual variation on Beauty: “Observe that part of a beautiful woman where she is perhaps the most beautiful, about the neck and breasts; the smoothness, the softness, the easy and insensible swell; the variety of the surface, which is never for the smallest space the same; the deceitful maze through which the unsteady eye slides giddily, without knowing where to fix, or whither it is carried. Is not this a demonstration of that change of surface, continual, and yet hardly perceptible at any point, which forms one of the great constituents of beauty?”
Part Four is where Burke truly blossoms. Before, he had given ‘needs’ for the sublime and beautiful, but had better explained what the causes were, and the reasons why.
Some excerpts from this section:
Why visual objects of great dimensions are sublime:
“Vision is performed by having a picture, formed by the rays of light which are reflected from the object, painted in one piece, instantaneously, on the retina, or last nervous part of the eye.[…] all the light reflected from a large body should strike the eye in one instant; yet we must suppose that the body itself is formed of a vast number of distinct points, every one of which, or the ray from every one, makes an impression on the retina. So that, though the image of one point should cause but a small tension of this membrane, another, and another, and another stroke, must in their progress cause a very great one, until it arrives at last to the highest degree; and the whole capacity of the eye, vibrating in all its parts, must approach near to the nature of what causes pain, and consequently must produce an idea of the sublime.”
Similar logic to the above is used in the creation of Sublime through the repetition of noise.
My opinions on Burke’s work
I can definitely see why he is an important figure in the development of the Aesthetic, particularly the idea of the Sublime and Beautiful. His somewhat psychological development into the reasons of the feelings we encounter definitely made it in an interesting read. For example, his mentioning of how things beautiful have the ability to decrease an individual’s nerves foreshadows what we now know from Neuroscience.
Having read a bit of Kant’s book on the Sublime, and he greatly focuses on the ‘greatness’ and ‘infinite’, which I too, believe are the best sections of this book.
I recommend this book to anyone who wants to know about the development of the Aesthetic, and/or has an interest in the Romantic notion of feelings and how nature, normally, affects Humans.

[Sofie Amalie]

Vi skulle kun læse halvdelen til uni, og så var jeg sådan "ej, men jeg læser da bare resten, for det er bare rart at kunne sige, at man har læst hele bogen." But who was I kidding - får den jo aldrig læst færdigt.

[Ricky · Rating 1 out of 5]

lol

[Nick · Rating 3 out of 5]

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh whaaaaaaaaaaaaat?

This was supposed to be a book about aesthetics, but it ended up being a book about Edmund Burke's own little deeply subjective analysis of his own aesthetic tastes and preferences. Its amazing how little in this can be universalized and yet how confidently it is presented as though hes discussing physics, or even ethics.

DID YOU KNOW that smooth objects are inherently more beautiful than rough objects? Don't tell the Japanese! Did you know that sharp angles are not as beautiful as curves? Did you know that dark skin isn't as beautiful as light skin? Whoops!

Yeah, lots of stuff like that in here. Random intuitive leaps about what beauty consists of which seem grossly out of step with what we currently think. Also he makes up a bunch of divisions like "the sublime" and some other distinctions like the horrifying or something. Obviously those are real distinctions, but somewhat arbitrary ones, which is not how he treats them.

[Sophy H · Rating 1 out of 5]

Pffffffffffffffffffft! Where to start!!!

Here's what it read like to me:-

Er so er beauty yeah, I reckon that's a thing innit? So like you think one thing is beautiful and I don't, right. And er, pain yeah, it aint all bad, or is it? Maybe it's pleasure like. And like that thing surprise, that's cool innit?! And like grace yeah that's something that posh things have yeah? And blah blah blah blah....................................................

Another olde worlde "gentleman" sticking his oar in and giving his opinion about the bloody obvious!!! Not that I expect every philosophical book to be profound and educational, but you do expect more than trite opinion.

[Nicoline]

Skulle kun læse halvdelen 🤫 shhhh

[Crisiana]

it was ok

[Nick · Rating 5 out of 5]

A Philosophical Inquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful by Edmund Burke 1757. A very interesting work that attempts to do to aesthetics what Locke tried to do with philosophy. That is to put it on an empirical or scientific basis. Over a century before Charles Darwin, Burke tries to ground the sublime and the beautiful into survival and sexual reproduction. The beautiful is rooted to pleasure and ultimately sexuality, and the sublime rooted in pain and aggression, and ultimately survival. The work is definitely worth going back to to reconsider the dynamic nature of some of his concepts, much as he tried to root them all in conscious sense impressions.

The introduction on taste is the longest section of the work and understanding the section is crucial toward accepting his conclusions. Burke sets up the work telling us that the standards of taste are the same among all humans and that differences are more "apparent than real." If there were not some standard, we could not communicate with each other as we do on a regular basis. We accept certain measures as objective like money or the law, but continue to declare things like beauty or taste to be "in the eye of the beholder." We have this notion of taste, if there was nothing behind it, its invocation in discourse would be quite absurd. Burke defines taste as the faculty of mind which is affected by something. That something is an object, through sensation. We can safely assume that we humans all experience things the same way. If not we would assume that "the same cause operating in the same manner...will produce different effects, which would be highly absurd."

Language follows this commonality of experience in how we describe certain tastes. Sweetness is pleasant, sourness is unpleasant. Burke then asserts something like Hume's copy principle by saying that the original impression is stronger than any imagination which derives ultimately from the impression. "The power of distinguishing between the natural and the acquired relish remains to the very last." Nobody can think that tobacco is sweet. If one does so, we "immediately conclude that the organs of this man are out of order, and that his palate is utterly vitiated." We can however derive pleasure or pain from the same tastes, dependent on our individual habits and temperament, but not different tastes.

So far this is associationist psychology; our aversion and attraction to things is reinforced by prior experiences. Tobacco is desirable to some because of its effects other than taste "things do not spontaneously present themselves to the palate...they are generally applied to it...they often form the palate by degrees, and by force of these associations."

Besides sensation, the mind can also represent at will ideas of things as they are in memory or create new associations between them. This is imagination, which cannot produce anything new. What imagination does is form expectations about things we experience, such as fear or hope. Intelligence consists in comparison among different experiences.

We prefer similarity in our train of thought (which is why it's so frustrating when music skips). We are more struck by resemblance, as completely different things require no more explanation between them than that they are different (law of excluded middle). "Men are much more inclined to belief than to incredulity." It takes mental acuity to differentiate things. Good taste doesn't depend on greater judgment or intelligence, but knowledge from experience. The difference among taste is a difference in degrees of knowledge. But all have common the criterion of pleasure and pain. And "so far as Taste is natural, it is nearly common to all." We can be more sensitive than others or be more familiar with certain tastes, while all having the same basis for judgement.

(Jeremy Bentham would later say that "pushpin is as good as poetry", which would would only be true if one has the knowledge necessary to understand poetry. John Stuart Mill came up with the great retort "It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.")

We then arrive at a fuller definition of taste. Taste because it requires some degrees of knowledge isn't just a "simple idea" or single impression, it is a synthetic unity of sense, imagination, and judgement. "The groundwork of all these is the same in the human mind."

Burke sets out an objective or "scientific" criterion for discussing aesthetics, launching from the associationist psychologies of John Locke and David Hume. He establishes that it is possible to make rational inquiry into what is usually seen as subjective, provided its basis is in sense impression which for empiricists is the substance of reality.

The main body of the work begins on the surface of emotions: novelty. Novelty or curiosity is the most superficial of emotions as it is chiefly concerned with its object. Once we get to know something, it doesn't grab our attention as something unknown, even if said thing is of worse quality. It is an active feeling, which it can be said motivates us into action like hardly anything else. If we want to learn something, it helps to be curious and not familiar with the subject matter. "Some degree of novelty just be one of the materials in every instrument which works upon the mind." Aristotle himself told us that philosophy begins with wonder.

Next we move to the foundational emotions discussed in the taste section; pleasure and pain. Pleasure and pain are simple ideas. They cannot be reduced to another; pain is not the absence of pleasure and pleasure is not the absence of pain. Burke labels delight as the absence of pain. The mind can also be in a state of indifference, which is probably the most common state says Burke.

Pleasure and pain can be interpreted as excitations in the bodily organs from this transfer of energy. Both pain and pleasure for Burke arouse us out of a state of indifference, being at least novel. Burke however is interested in a more phenomenal treatment of emotions.

The greatest expression of pain and pleasure is the sublime and the beautiful, which are powerful feelings which derive from two needs: self-preservation and society. Self-preservation turns by pain, from the state of danger which from expectation of said state brings terror. Society aims at continuing our own existence through the species by generation, and living together in general.

The sublime and the beautiful are for Burke powerful emotions, and he doesn't venture much further than that. He takes the experiences as given and seeks to ground them in sense impressions. His main argument is that the sublime and the beautiful are distinct experiences which can be explained by sensual factors.

Self-preservation is somewhat analogous to Freud's reality principle. For Burke, pain is a stronger emotion than pleasure, though he doesn't provide an explanation for this other than direct experience. From this he reasons that death is more arresting than pain, by comparison. We are more ready to suffer most pains rather than death. His reasoning I think is from self-preservation. Painful things are harmful to our existence and disrupt a chain of thinking, as Burke said before we prefer similarity to difference and new things to familiar things. So pain puts us into action to return to either indifference or pleasure. Burke said before that indifference is the state we are more often in. By death he probably means the experience of dying and not the actual state of non-existence. Burke follows the utilitarian logic of action being done to gain pleasure and avoid pain, with indifference being a state of inaction rather than something which takes effort to maintain (equilibrium).

The sublime has its basis in pain, but operates on terror which is an expectation of pain. The sublime is so powerful because it takes hold of all our thoughts, mostly by imagination and expectation. Because of the imaginary and reckoning aspects, at a certain distance, the sublime can be delightful. We can experience the power the terrible holds over us while not being in pain or danger of our lives. The power is our attention because it is disruptive and different. It removes us from a state of indifference without introducing pain, and so can be a source of delight (though not pleasure). By being held in the mental state of terror by the sublime yet not experiencing pain, we can experience delight while avoiding danger.

The other need is society, the aim of the beautiful, which is divisible into sexual society and general society. Both aim at species-life, through generation and maintenance of society. Generation of the species is of course sexuality which has its origin in "gratifications and pleasures." These pleasures are so strong that their loss produces violent and turbulent effects on us which aim at reestablishing said pleasures. These pleasures which seize the mind can be described as love, which like terror forms expectations about its objects and a mental dependency. The pleasure of sexuality and love is far greater than health and maintenance of life. This has to be so, for "the generation of mankind is a great purpose,named it is requisite that men should be animated to the pursuit of it by some great incentive." Without such a reward, it is unlikely that we would undergo the great challenges in its performance. In this way, love has an aggressive element which introduces ambivalence because it can conflict with our other needs.

The beautiful comes from love which is grounded in pleasure. Brutes and animals attract to each other sexually, but out of instinct rather than choice. For humans, the pleasure others provide us captures our imagination and gives us the need to always have access to them. Love produces expectations for continuation, and to varying degrees reciprocity. "They inspire us with sentiments of tenderness and affection towards their persons; we like to have them near us, and we enter willingly into a kind of relation with them, unless we should have strong reasons to the contrary."

The other social need, to belong with others in general, gives "no positive pleasure". This is puzzling since humans are social creatures. Total isolation, Burke notes, is very unpleasant. From this Burke reasons that social life is motivated more from pain than pleasure. Alienation from society is unpleasant, but keeping in mind that the absence pleasure is not painful, there is an element of ambivalence in that we do as Burke said require some time to ourselves even while long term isolation makes us unhappy. This ambivalence brings to mind Freud's superego which regulates individual behavior by pain and uneasiness. "When the superego is formed, considerable amounts of the aggressive instinct become fixated within the ego and operate there in a self-destructive fashion."

The beautiful is like Eros, a formative drive. Eros maintains life in its individual forms, by continually striving to resist equilibrium with the environment. The ultimate aim is the preservation of the species, though this develops later in life and is fraught with difficulties for the individual. Self preservation Burke argued works by pain and danger. Species preservation cannot work like this because the good of the species does not always align with the individual and often runs counter. So there had to develop a way of bringing the individual in conformity with species-life. This parallels with modern evolutionary theory (Neo-Darwinism) which seeks to answer why an individual acting only with the survival of their genes would develop altruistic behavior. This begins with kin altruism as our relatives are genetically close to us. But over time these behaviors become reinforced and moored from their original purpose to apply to others.

This process is called sublimation. Sublimation channels socially unacceptable desires into socially acceptable desires, without conscious awareness. In society, only a portion of our sexual energy is free to do with as we will. The rest of our sexual energy is prevented from expression. But rather than being bound up inside of us, which is destructive, we channel the remaining free energy into other socially acceptable ways.

Burke lists three social passions which can be viewed as sublimation; sympathy, imitation, and ambition. Each are ways we can enjoy others while at the same time being separate from them. Sympathy as opposed to empathy involves feelings centered toward someone else, not imaging ourselves as them. It is simulation, not a substitution. The pleasure gained is from a safe distance where we can either imagine ourselves in another's good situation or avoiding their worse situation. Which is why we enjoy reading or watching the lives of fictional characters. Imitation (or repetition) identifies ourselves with others by copying their behavior and appearance, but by our own will. It is a voluntary identification, a multiplication of the other. This is how we often learn, and knowledge gives us power. Ambition manifests an aggressive impulse towards others, but which is aimed at other's approval or recognition of us, a fixation. "Men must remain as brutes do." This domination is largely imaginary, as we depend on the approval of those separate from us. We cannot overpower them to the point of annihilation as we won't gain their recognition if death. This all reminds me of both Thomas Hobbes' diffidence and glory among men in the state of nature, and Hegel's master-slave dialectic. Both deal with the intersubjective and conflicting nature of our desire to command nature to our needs.

The sublime and the beautiful can be understood as inhibited means of indulging in primal impulses, as sublimation. Sublime experience puts us in the presence of power external to our own. The sublime connects us to the vast universe, as a sort of reunion. Burke lists greatness, obscurity, and infinity as belonging to the sublime. Freud described religion as providing an oceanic feeling, of limitless, and it is no wonder that the vast ocean is a common source of the sublime. This power derives from our initial connectedness to the world, primary narcissism. At a very young age we haven't divided the world into living and non-living, self and other. As we develop, we lose that direct connection to survive, as ourselves and with others. To return to that state would be self destructive, a major regression, a kind of death drive. The sublime experience is powerful because it brings back the sensation of that lost power without actually destroying us. The sublime is not comprehensible or controllable. It controls us, and it is only that power over us that makes it attractive.

The beautiful in contrast is small, graceful, elegant. Burke maintains that beauty isn't in proportion or perfection. As beautiful things can be frail or very striking. Babies are weak but are found to be pleasing, and giraffe necks are not in equal proportion with their bodies, but are not considered to be grotesque. What is beautiful, it seems, relates to what we can grasp, physically and mentally. We want to keep the beautiful, we want to control it, and we are able to comprehend it in thought. The enjoyment is not from power which makes the beautiful less compelling than the sublime, but more sought after. "For the enjoyment of pleasure, no great efforts of power are at all necessary." We can have power over beautiful things to keep them, for out of our control they are not as beautiful as the expectations associated with beautiful things produce a fear of loss.

The masculine is sublime, the beautiful is feminine. Beauty and love drive us to continue and extend the struggle for existence; the sublime and terrible drive us to escape individual existence by experience of both reunion with the world and destruction of the self.

[Katie]

Read a small excerpt for philosophy of beauty class. I really appreciate Burke's approach but need to return someday to understand it more deeply.

[Fabrício Tavares De Moraes · Rating 4 out of 5]

Investigação minuciosa e rigorosa sobre a fisiologia da percepção estética.

[Eileen · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.25 stars

[Afonso · Rating 5 out of 5]

dos melhores livros de filosofia que já li.
algumas notas que fui tirando sobre o livro:

PARTE I
um livro denso e exigente, mas capaz de nos fazer pensar de forma unica e minuciosamente detalhada sobre o "carater" daquilo que sentimos e apreciamos.
acho que das coisas que mais me fascina neste livro é o seu pensamento escorreito e profundamente objetivo de pensar estes temas (possivelmente até mais que o próprio tema abordado no livro)
Burke=fundador do conservadorismo moderno
o sentimento de indiferença com estado habitual do ser humano
o "raciocinio" dá nos a conclusao sobre o que gostamos (gosto primario: sentidos, gosto secundario: imaginaçao)
dor e perigo como forma de autopreservaçao -> sensaçoes mais poderosas de todas
o deleite e a reduçao ou a cessaçao da dor/ O deleite como forma de apreciar a dor sem sermos atingidos por ela.
beleza do sexo separa o homem do animal
a discussao do que é belo será sempre um assunto em aberto. burke oferece com esta investigaçao "linhas mestras" para melhor decifrarmos conceitos tao complexos como o de "beleza" ou o de "sublime"
humildade acima de qualquer tipo de pretensao: correçao do erro como forma de progresso.
a aquisiçao de conhecimento se nao for util, perde o seu objetivo.
usando as mesmas ferramentas de raciocinio enconrremos em conclusoes semelhantes.
deleite (remoçao da dor/perigo) != prazer (bem estar)
o fim do prazer origina indiferença, desilusao ou desgosto.
o desgosto é suportado voluntariamente (ao contrario da dor); o desgosto corresponde no fundo a ser dominado pela paixao
por darmos o nosso bem estar como garantido é que a dor nos custa tanto!
pelo facto de sermos naturalmente saudaveis e salubres, sao as paixoes da dor e do perigo (adversas a este estado), que constituem as paixoes mais fortes e poderosas.
sublime <=> emoçoes fortes (boas ou mas)
das paixoes que pertencem a sociedade: 1. sociedade dos sexos -> reproduçao; 2. sociedade 'geral' -> composta por homens, animais, natureza (relaçao do homem com o mundo inanimado)
se estivessemos constantemente e ininterruptamente satisfeitos com a nossa vida, seriamos refens da inaçao e da falta de iniciativa
a beleza do sexo está no acrescento das qualidades sociais que associamos ao nosso parceiro(a)
simpatia=partilha das preocupaçoes dos outros
razao pela qual somos fascinados pela tragedia: observar nos outros aquilo que nunca seriamos capazes de fazer por nos proprios
paixoes da sociedade: 1) tragedia 2) imitaçao
é a ambiçao que nos motiva a fazer mais do que imitar os outros!
tipos de paixoes: 1) autopreservaçao: dor e perigo (paixoes mais fortes/intensas) 2) amor (sociedade dos sexos) 3)simpatia/empatia 4)amor/beleza (sociedade dos homens e animais)
as paixoes enquanto "orgaos" da mente
nao é invulgar estar errado na teoria e ter razao na pratica
"quem trabalha para açem da superficie das coisas, embora possa enganar-se, limpa o caminho para os outros, e pode ate fazer com que os seus erros sirvam a causa da verdade" -> nunca é em vão tentar, pior do que estar mal é nao fazer nada (inépcia) (com as devidas exceçoes...)

PARTE II
assombro=paixao pelo que e grande e sublime na natureza; efeito do sublime no seu maior grau
o medo é o receio da dor e da morte
ficar 'atónito'=medo+assombro
"quando conhecemos a dimensao total de um qualquer perigo, quando podemos habituar a ele os nossos olhos, muito da apreensao desaparece"
as palavras sao a forma mais eficaz de traduzir emoçoes e a melhor forma de argumentaçao
as paixoes nao se regem pela logica do raciocinio nem pela objetividade.
todos os homens sao como as pessoas vulgarem em relaçao aquilo que nao compreendem
é a proximidade da infinidade que, entre outras coisas, nos impressiona a mente devido a tentativa de traduzir o impossivel em possivel!
porque tememos o touro e nao o boi (ou medo do lobo e nao do cao)-> devido a ideia de grandiosidade associada ao perigo
->admiramos aquilo que nao conseguimos controlar ou submeter à nossa vontade (exemplo: forças da natureza)
tal como referido no "Anticristo", a religiao (em especial a Cristã catolica) impoe se sobretudo atraves da intimidaçao, o medo é uma demonstraçao de poder.
principais privaçoes que afetam o homem: vazio, escuridao, solidao e silencio
no que toca ao efeito do sublime na vastidao: profundidade>altura>comprimento
na maior parte dos casos da nossa vida, o inifinito é uma mera ilusao
sucessao e uniformidade -> origem do efeito de 'grandeza' nas igrejas
a dificuldade (em realizar algo) como fonte de sublime devido a ardua realizaçao de algo/alguma coisa
a luz torna se escuridao se a observarmos atenta e ininterruptamente
as cores consideradas como produtoras do sublime: vermelho forte, cores tristes, cores foscas, preto, castanho, purpura intenso. cores suaves e/ou alegres nao produzem sublime.
sublime=sensaçao de assombro/admiraçao
som e ruido: para alem da visao, tambem a audiçao (sons) sao origem do sublime (gritos de uma multidao num estadio de futebol, manifestaçoes, concertos, etc)
inicio subito/subita paragem de um som tambem produz sublime
as transiçoes subitas de um extremo ao outro despertam a nossa atençao -> paramos para melhor observar
terrivel vs odioso: as coisas que sao sempre grandiosas sao terriveis; odioso- qualidades desagradaveis (mas faceis de ultrapassar) sao odiosas
a dor corporal produz sublime!
"uma observaçao que na realidade apenas exige uma atençao a natureza que pode ser feita por toda a gente"-> estes exercicios de reflexao feitos por burke estao ao alcance de qualquer um
o deleite do sublime (e de saber identifica-lo) requer grande atençao ao pormenor, bem como uma dedicaçao grande do nosso tempo
o sublime e uma ideia que pertence a nossa auto preservaçao. nenhum prazer com origem num causa positiva lhe pertence

PARTE III
amor=satisfaçao originada pel contemplaçao de qualquer coisa bela
desejo/luxuria=posse objetiva de algo que nao nos afet pela sua beleza, mas pela satisfaçao da 'energia da mente'
ha desejo sem beleza e beleza que causa amor mas nao causa desejo. pelo que desejo e beleza nao tem uma relaçao direta entre si.
é a satisfaçao despoletada pelos nossos sentidos que faz de algo/alguem belo aos nossos olhos.
proporçao é a medida da qualidade relativa
a proporçao nao é a causa da beleza (nos vegetais): olho humano nao tem a capacidade de realizar mediçoes precisas, pelo que a mente é neutra a proporçao quando considera um objeto como um objeto "belo"
a beleza reside na figura regular mais do que na proporçao.
proporçoes diferentes, contudo opostas entre si propiciam o belo (exemplo do cisne, pavao)
os passaros e as flores sao mais semelhantes do que pensamos
em certa forma, a beleza é a propria contemplaçao da natureza
importancia de questionar aquilo que damos como certo (no sentido de que Burke vem colocar em causa a origem da beleza que era considerada naquela epoca: a proporçao dos corpos/objetos/etc
Na verdade, nao é a medida, mas a figura a origem da beleza da forma
o homem é a medida dele proprio (molda o mundo a sua realidade)
->de notar que devemos enquadrar o presente discurso no contexto do seculo xviii, em que a ideia de proporçao como origem da beleza era muito comum, acabando este texto por ser uma critica a essas ideias (talvez uma consequencia tardia da forma de pensar do Renascimento)
o habito é a nossa segunda natureza
o nosso estado natural/comum é o de indiferença à dor e ao prazer.
somos vitimas dos nossos proprios habitos
a proporçao é banal na natureza, nao é condiçao suficiente para definir beleza
proporçao e beleza nao sao ideias da mesma natureza.
a razao de considerarmos a figura humana mais bela em detrimento das restantes relaciona se com o facto de convivermos mais com os homens do que com os animais (habito)
Amar nao é mais do que sermos afetados por uma vontade que nao controlamos
virtudes que causam admiraçao: fortaleza, justiça, sabedoria (entre outras semelhantes)
virtudes que causam paixao (virtudes "suaves"): delicadeza de temperamento, compaixao, doçura e liberalidade.
"a autoridade de um pai, tao util ao nosso bem estar, e tao justamente veneravel sob qualquer ponto de vista, impede nos de sentir por ele aquele amor pleno que temos pelas nossas maes, cujo carinho e indulgencia atenuam a autoridade parental. mas geralmente temos um grande amor pelos nossos avos, nos quais a autoridade é mais remota, e a fraqueza da idade transforma-a em algo parecido com a parcialidade feminina"
def. de beleza="alguma qualidade presente nos corpos que age mecanicamente sobre a mente humana atraves da intervençao dos sentidos"
o sublime causa admiraçao
submetemo-nos ao que admiramos, mas amamos aquilo que nos submete
"a beleza das mulheres deve se, de forma consideravel, a sua fraqueza ou delicadeza, sendo ainda mais reforçada pela timidez, uma qualidade analoga da mente" (sec. xviii, é bom nao esquecer...)
carateristicas da beleza: pequenez, lisura, suavidade de transiçoes, delicadeza, tunalidade clara
graça=ideia pertencente a postura e ao movimento
elegancia=partes lisas+forma regular
a beleza na musica nao suporta a intensidade e a força dos sons
a noçao noçao de "belo" está limitada aquilo que percecionamos
SUBLIME vs BELO:
sublime: objetos vastos, rugoso e negligente, aprecia a linha reta, escuro e sombrio, solido e massivo, fundador da DOR.
belo: objetos pequenos, liso e pulido, aprecia a variaçao da direçao das partes, nao deve ser obscuro, leve e delicado, fundador do PRAZER

PARTE IV
o objetivo desta investigaçao filosofica nao e alcançar uma conclusao, mas sim estabelecer relaçoes logicas entre as afeçoes da mente no corpo e as afeçoes do corpo na mente.
o instinto da paixao impede nos de a racionalizar
medo->perceçao da dor->corpo sugere perigo
terror->perceçao da morte->mente sugere o perigo
o trabalho é a superaçao de dificuldades->soluçao para os problemas da mente
o esforço da mente afeta o corpo e o esforço do corpo afeta a mente
graus de sublime: assombro>respeito>admiraçao
porque é a unidade necessaria a vastidao: é a necessidade de identificar/entender o significado dos objetos que nos faz dedicar maior atençao e assim provocar o efeito do sublime sob a forma de admiraçao/contemplaçao (ex. arranha ceus)
"se pudermos compreender claramente como as coisas operam sobre um dos nossos sentidos, sera muito menos dificil imaginar como elas afetam os restantes"
um unico impulso nao nos impressiona tao profundamente como uma sucessao de impulsos similares
negrume=escuridao parcial
corpos negros enquanto 'espaços vazios'
exemplos de 'desfasamento' entre a mente e o corpo: "quando tentamos sentarmo nos numa cadeira e ela é muito mais baixa do que se espera, o choque e bastante grande, muito maior do que se poderia imaginar numa queda tao pequena como a que pode causar a diferença em altura entre uma cadeira e outra. Se, depois de descer um lanço de escadas, tentarmos inadvertidamente dar mais um passo como os anteriores, o choque é extremamente forte e desagradavel, nao havendo maneira de o reproduzir artificialmente, quando o esperamos e nos preparamos para ele" (exemplo da cadeira e das escadas)
o habito reconcilia-nos com todas as coisas
a causa fisica do amor: a beleza faz relaxar as fibras do nosso corpo, fazendo-nos sentir relaxados ->'materializaçao' do amor
efeito fisico do amor: "cabeça inclina se ligeirmanete para um lado; as palpebras fecham se mais do que costume e os olhos giram docemente, inclinando-se para o objeto; a boca entreabre se e respira lentamente, emitindo, de tempos a tempos, um suspiro discreto; o corpo acalma se a as maos caem molemente para os lados"
a doçura corresponde à "beleza" do paladar
objetos angulosos impedem o relaxamento das 'fibras oticas', dai que raramente sejam belos.
especiosidade=beleza associada a objetos de grandes dimensoes no mundo animal e vegetal

PARTE V
Entre outras coisas, as palavras associam objetos a sentimentos
As palavras podem ser divididas em 3 classes:
1) palavras agregadas=representam ideias simples (homem, arvore)
2) palavras simples abstratas=caraterizam ideias simples (alto, verde, redondo)
3) palavras abstratas compostas=caraterizam relaçoes entre as duas anteriores, nao constituindo essencias reais (virtude, honra)
os termos gerais ocorrem antes das ideias
"sabio, valente, generoso, bom e grandioso (...) Estas palavras, nao tendo aplicaçao, deveriam ser ineficazes. Mas, quando os termos reservados as grandes ocasioes sao usados, somos afetados até mesmo sem aquelas ocasioes"->somos afetados antecipadamente pelo significado das palavras mesmo antes de conhecer o contexto em que sao usadas! Ou seja, dizendo "bela casa", somos levados a considerar a casa como "bela", mesmo antes de verificarmos essa propriedade de "beleza" na casa
as palavras podem afetar nos sem suscitar imagens: "por mais estranho que possa parecer, muitas vezes somos incapazes de saber que ideias temos das coisas ou se, acerca de determinados assuntos, as chegamos a ter de todo". Exemplo do poeta Blacklock, cego de nascença -> "poucos homens abençoados com mais perfeita visao conseguem descrever os objetos visuais com mais vivacidade e precisao do que este cego"
"Mas e provavel que para ele, as palavras vermelho, azul, verde, servissem os mesmos propositos que as ideias das proprias cores" -> como imaginará um cego as cores?
a 'magia' da poesia está na sua subjetividade
a poesia sugere-nos ideias, enquanto a pintura oferece uma ideia clara das proprias coisas
a poesia nao imita a realidade pois sempre havera um distanciamente entre o significado das palavras e o verdadeiro significado da realidade.
a força da poesia para retratar emoçoes esta na conjugaçao da palavra, enquanto a forma mais eficiente de expressao, e na subjetividade, enquanto forma de comunicar sentimentos abstratos
"Pode se observar que as linguas muito requintadas e aquelas que sao louvadas pela sua superior clareza e perspicacia sao em geral desprovidas de força. a lingua francesa tem esta perfeiçao e este defeitoo. ao passo que as linguas orientais e a maioria das linguas faladas pelos povos nao cultivados sao possuidoras duma grande força e energia de expressao, o que e perfeitamente natural. os povos rudes sao observadores medianos das coisas e nao as distinguem de forma critica. mas, por este mesmo motivo, sentem uma dmiraçao maior e sao mais afetados pelo que veem e, portanto, expressam se duma maneira mais ardente e apaixonada"

Esta investigaçao filosofica procura justificar a origem daquilo que consideramos belo/sublime atraves das propriedades naturais daquilo que observamos e a forma como se refletem nas paixoes da nossa mente.

[Ostrava · Rating 3 out of 5]

It feels too confident for something that's not very rigorous and pretty easy to dismiss as entirely based on "feelings". There is a method here, but it's flawed.

I really like how it defines the sublime, though. Need more of that.

[michelletliu · Rating 3 out of 5]

“As the rose-tree is composed of the sweetest flowers and the sharpest thorns, as the heavens are sometimes overcast—alternately tempestuous and serene—so is the life of man intermingled with hopes and fears, with joys and sorrows, with pleasure and pain.”

I enjoyed the principal theory behind this book more than the book itself. I love the idea of the "sublime" — finding the ultimate beauty when in contrast against terror. However, the execution of this book was quite a dense exploration of the idea and went completely over my head. Self-initiated thinking about the ideas of the sublime and beautiful is a much better experience than absorbing it from this book.

----------------------------------------------

"Nothing tends more to the corruption of science than to suffer it to stagnate. These waters must be troubled, before they can exert their virtues"

[Dawson Cole]

get me out of this class. I know im so dense but none of this is real
(better than Kant tho)

[Czarny Pies · Rating 2 out of 5]

I read Edmund Burk's " A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful" because earlier this year I had read "Romanticism" by David Blayney and "The Romantic Rebellion" Kenneth Clark both of which asserted that the romantic rebellion against neo- classical art had its intellectual basis in Burk's theory of the sublime. The same point was made at an exhibit of paintings of Caspar David Friedrich that I had attended thirty years previously. The notion that the romantic movement in painting is linked to Burk is then persistent. Reading the "Philoshical Enquiry" however left me skeptical.
The connection between Burk's sublime and William Wordsworth's epic poem the "Prologue" is quite clear. Linking Burk to Casper David Friedrich, Théodore Géricault or Eugène Delacroix however is quite a stretch. Burk does indeed state that man's strongest impulses come from emotions not reason which is a core tenet of the romanticism. However, Burk insists that the sublime and the beautiful are two different things which is a difficult proposition. According to Burk beauty is based on pleasure whereas the sublime is based on terror. Beauty is small while the sublime is immense.
My biggest problem is probably a personal one. As I said above, I first encountered the word "sublime" linked to romantic art at an exhibit of works by Casper David Friedrich. The sublime of Friedrich conforms to the dictionary definition which is: "of such excellence, grandeur, or beauty as to inspire great admiration." Friedrich's paintings are awe-inspiring. They do not provoke any emotion of terror no do any of the romantic paintings that I have seen.
Burk's "Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful" may belong to the intellectual and cultural ferment of romanticism. I do not think however that it was the great catalyser that created the movement.

[Davis Smith · Rating 3 out of 5]

(From my Harvard Classics set) The prefatory essay "On Taste" is the only part of this that I would actually recommend to the average reader, since in a few simple and irrefutable strokes he demolishes the egocentric pretensions of those who would render all aesthetic judgment to taste. However, the actual treatise is a mixed affair. It seems to me, ironically, that Burke's declarations about beauty in particular are simply the preferences of a stodgy, arch-conservative Rococo elite who hasn't been exposed to much variety in life. And even for someone who deplores identity quibbles in books, his objectification of women is disturbing. If nothing else it's a valuable look at the theory behind the Neoclassical movement that informed Haydn and Mozart. Personally, that's one of my least favorite eras of Western art, so I found myself less sympathetic to Burke's narrow definitions. His work on the Sublime is more interesting and paved the way for Romanticism in that regard. Ultimately, an interesting period piece with a few applications. Also, I'd like to think I'm accustomed to older English diction, but man, Burke's weighty prose is a slog.

[J. Alfred · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not something I'd read for fun, but I think I'm smarter for having finished it. It is a solid philosophical inquiry into the origin of our ideas of the sublime and beautiful, as you may have been able to guess from its title. It is apparently a foundational text for the aesthetics of the Romantics, and apparently Burke (who knows at least four languages) wrote it when he was nineteen, so if you want to feel like your life is passing you by, this is a good one.