Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Gadamer and Schopenhauer A Comparative A

    Uploaded by

    Jacopo Frascaroli
    21 views15 pages

    Original Title

    Gadamer_and_Schopenhauer_A_Comparative_A

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    21 views15 pages

    Gadamer and Schopenhauer A Comparative A

    Uploaded by

    Jacopo Frascaroli

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 15
    TABLES (One-Way Analysis of Variance for Mean Factor Scoe of Religious values ‘fou Lata Earopan Counties GADAMER AND SCHOPENHAUEI A COMPARATIVE ACCOUNT OF THEIR AESTHETIC THEORIES. (laude Mangion 10 Introduction ‘Bosh Schopenhauer and Gadamer arin ter own way actions to Kast ‘wisterefore wel to open his pape by contextuaizing them ivi thei ‘elsionhiptohim, poitang out riety hatthey inkeriendhow they repo tothe Kantian Lega. Kent's two erques had explored the nar of theoretical and practic! esen o ie ead fat war a eenglyunbidgeable ap between the two ‘eal On te ove hand, te Crique of Pare Reason deat withthe init of tur undentandog ofthe word of tate, whilst the Crlique of Practical ‘earn dealt with be nore domain. The former domain of nfe, desrmined hjcts wes anette ler where eedom was a preaune for moral ‘Sehuviour The ineconclable wo of subject and object — sel a major oncom 1 subsequent Geman Ideals — as mediated by an este fea, Thus wit he Critque of Judgement Kant can alto be considered ax Proposing teyten-buling ploophy within which aesthetics played an Fporant ree And hough Kant donied adding ahirdaonomous,ethec ‘ein the was how he was sebequeti read ‘Eventhough Schopenbwer admired Kan’ Settwo critiques, head ite to sy out te lst ofc in is rview of Ken's work, the Cridgue of Shudgenenis virtually diaminsd. He vecuses Kant of avg missed th point in‘fecong upon te condone enblng one to pass Jedgment on the beau! er than he beast ebject of pereeption ett Kat focused on Jadpemeets of ste for he was primary terested in what occured inthe 1. 1a te of pment Caen re On 198812 I 3. Bento ar ‘abject By starting wit te subject, Schopenhauer accses Kant of letming ‘hoot the Beau fom he satemeat af oer. Despite missing Kans Cinque of udgemen the cher wos remain seminal in Schopenhauer’ eyes. Alhoogh he accept the Kestin iinction ‘ofthe phenomenal and noumcnal worl, be resins that the wey Kent formulates this sanction tenable, for Kan egimately postulate ie ‘noumenon as kindof invsle abject behind’ the phenome! wail On ants own premises only the objects of expences the phenomena se [owe and hence the noumeaa i nknowabe, However Schopenbacr didnot eliminate sliogether th Kantian Ihognelt He argued ht twain ft Koa Dace suite ot fhe ing vis ra achieved nth at of elf censioume noon at sinner Schopeshaa es the motvationl foc creat ‘te wil! The ing too is ened wl whch wasscpied ‘taf in phenome However, Schoeshve dr la fase ‘ivi Theody wate capt ete eo onl podier Rater te body od ote phenomena a he Se fen rion oh ol abject don rdiay perception From ths andpon the bod nares anengoee ‘tj, Whi Heqe! comet te Atl et eehinae et oe cation of nn. Schoen wae Cnsnted te Ws ‘aly, tuto wowatonal oe, wibou ay leslopal designs Is ‘wil’s nature that makes Schopenhauer look pon life ass miserable ‘affair, ‘The will ves wo ll deen, bt for every deste hid ee os tak is place, prompang the wil na ute sein, Thiele ees ‘emporily satatdbt constantly enowed Asa re it becomes es ofiterniablesaeg.Tempory Ineo fom he svg ae itis emibi icouph te exper te onl, wether nto ss {88 capers he sutjet comes into contact ihe Paton es he ristidpenngon team Acqua res ehaee ‘knowledge and truth. = 2% Be dee i eso ha npn, ‘el 2 Shope ae ed Nae NE Te ‘eed Sig camp hoses cased artnet ee Fc pipet atts ey ete SBSH om Kr Nahe (Manchone Univer Pr: Mane 1985) COADAMER AND SCHOMENUALER, « Gatames sla bas i trig pat rote in Kant tithe whom Gadamer hols resonable forth sation whe one no longer speaks of uth end ‘Knowledge in art With Kant nests became subjective fer consideaons cof acntetl judgments were based nt onthe nar ofthe aber, bt on he ‘nes who mead he ply of mpresioncouoning Bi ter Sea creator oro bebo In he Critique of Juigement Kant tempts to resolve ification Jedgements of tse nd beauty ae subjective fr thy ae ried Yo the inaividuals delight. Pleasure i the beutiful is nt acquired Cough onceptulzation or eflerton this were he case then it would be merely question of euning te corect ules of procedure or solving question of tase and beauty The subjective element xchded the posit of estbetin becoming part of Kets etic plosopy ‘The other problem Kant needed to reslve wes how agreement wes posible on querion of tate. Thi count be evublubed by induction Le, by seeing how many people agree on a paicular object as beau What Kant watted wast show that a judgement ofthe beaufl was such tha it ‘commanded te egreement of otes Thus Kant nsded to eublish positon ‘whee bot tbe objective andthe universal apes were fue Ka’ prdign rte beni sate peetsioetf mediate, medi by concepts, whove bei ise wibou flac o out spose. Arie erty spplemena nal fey fn at the te [Egor genus eply ohne nce the inagiaion {Be undesaning However atough hs soore ate, te gene sets ele ern of eo alts coibton brows ‘teen on ms Real lr camt erat following ea 0 ‘hr te ane depiction of earl benny men rcopos series ‘etme inl and te sce sar tos ev of ey coneps end theme pupae ‘As reultof Kans Crue of Judgement, sett couse became subjective, claiming an wea independent of considerations on knowledge and truth, focusing on tse and Tesing'. This the pont Gadamer ie sesaig. In delineating tuth snd inowedge within the frameweek ofthe tal sciences, Kat closed the oor of tu and knowlege to ‘Ths, both for Gadamer and Schopenhane, the experience of wis a source of Knowledge and th. However, whut che lime sem to te ‘lar, th content hz ims fers Ii thi ference which is paper sets oultoexplre Fi 20 Trath and inovldge i rt In the following sections hl be considering points of contac beween ‘Schopenhaver end Gadamer, namely the ins to uh and knowledge ina, ‘be eshete experience and their preoccopadons with genius. That | have found on these perl ae notanabirary choice, but was imposed ‘pon me by the author themalves wh formulate els poston around these omen ‘The intresting epect of Schopeshaerian aesthetics is its ambivalent poson when conaste to Gadamer's aesthetics, Like Gadamer (nd unlike Kan) hells sbont uth nd knowledges the experince of ar 0 at ts ‘on qeotons of what Kind of ruth and knowiodge tat they ifr, Yet Schopenhauer els makes te addional claim as tobe tral at ofa fdnatural best, Gadamer makes 0 roc ims bon he eae egies in ruth and Mathod that raising’ beauty tan cer standpoint least the Gisaeaton ofthe wok of at fom the double word oft andthe viewer's adam's historical survey point 0 Schiller as being responsible for producing what he calls he aeshete consciousness of diereauason. With Siler, the word west changed is meaning fom tht wed by Kant for Nr cansondena eu Kets wanscendenal jsifistioneablng one ‘opus jodgement of use was rnsformed from a methodological condition ‘one of content tothe inpetive of adopting an esete aude wo Bgs espe he inne of Kant, Schl’ proclamation ofa a fedom uhiaily dew fs resotes fom Fee. Shir was wo fering of Kwtn feplay of opntne fle, bt rae ewig oon Ric's ‘ory oft. The Snleian ply inp ineled he harmony of be form pate mater np, le fra pst vs ry snp te mtr pues for ng Tt ns a costo and tarmonined byte pay imple. it swith an at he Irae wer tought oot. ete cba tne stevens Bt Intact An mpoat conquest canes ovn dno tad ‘ssid in myremay. Theat fe bens aperencewsconad Ti aly, Nate ad at no loner complemented each er, bt wee ‘ont eying et notch aso eyo ‘Siero of ar pert “tr and "raiy tobe waaccnded Scilr's fe el Lingo” ofa aun al ination bo oll moral — dw the Sar of an “ae st whee ot eed society was interested in rt Thay, the rely whic Shiller opposed artis ‘nolongerthe ame concept fealty sed by Kan, According to Shillerthe sexthtc world was fined inter of mitation, eal, luton, mage & dream. Te was opposed to the ‘rea’ word. The nological defen of wate appearance was formated at tha moment Srben the seeeiespatemologet) model excluded any other form of Tnowldge outs sown method. Aesthetic concousess became lensed fom reality It was asonscloumescharaceizing th edocted society, forin Suche comin ts members shared the same fetes, namely an aii fo ‘ase once the anveslbynepting how crea of taste which mask a pericalareomaniy. Furthermore, there was 2 second mode of being of this sextbaic ensioumes: th ore of te work from its orignal context —its word ‘SGhilere arte conslousess no longer recogniaes the importance of Content ox te relation ofthe won of art ih ts werd. Anything which bas Derticular qualities determined ax acrthetc belong fo the aesthetic “onciouness I has become the centre towards Which works ee measured ak tre The Sehilran notion of sxtatc consciousness called by Ondaner Aesth differentiation, Its a process where eveything in which a work is footed —— orginal contest of fe religious or secular fenchon — is isropaded Diferetation i ta batactive process which lectin elation tthe scstheie ql Exta-tstetic elements, such a8 purpose, fenton, the Meaning of ts content ae exloded frm coosderations of teats nature Utihe werk. By fore of te excasions, the viewers prevented fom taking {ry moral religious atiades wih im towards the work ie, e supposedly te work withouty precocepins and prejedices Futhenore, ‘hen the ested coneciounes is applied tothe performative ar, fF ‘hample muse and ruma, a ifleence is ade between the origina! a Spposed ts reproduction Both — providing they fll ast crteia — idem independent each ter Their terpetaon io longer related {othe original cach is contemplated sesietinly. “The implication of tig view is described by Gadamer a having “the characte of simutaneiy "The double dereaation —of work ffm i ‘Worden beholer rom his ates —simulaneousy raises works of et of UMltnes oa co-present in the mod te beholder. Rar tas a esa 4, caer, hn Mad Sn nt Wade 979) 7 fate, determine bythe criteria opbald by he bebole’s world at becomes ‘somal with eatei ifrentiaton. Theat ofall ogi integrated othe ‘Go peecinen of exec diflerniation Ts embodiment ba ken pace in ‘hoor ofthe brary orth museum: thea of al ages amped together in ‘be ulding wit he consequence that he neste conscioumes adops 8 ttle etsade, Even architec, which might be conadered a resi © ‘tito diferentauon, succumbs Yo astieueconsciousnes with Baliings ‘eprofaced a tues = Aesthetic difereminon is hat stamp o rie art tothe standpoint of seem, batt sa standpoint whichis opposed othe Kanan deletion of Fea and consequent excldes scribing questions of tut and knowledge {bart Schopenkaue in tum considers the experience of eto be an experience ‘ofthe eter "rt stops the whe of tine. With his contemporaries be {poked upon ata ansisoeal. Yt uli them, els looked pn art ‘Re soureof th and knowledge. 1 nia this comet that Platonic Ideas —the objective apect of the ‘eae experience — are introduced” At it sight he seems fo Be [uoducing a pec of alien ontology into his word-view fr he claimed ha ‘eat isan indivisible wil which however mano Hull nthe word of ‘henomenoe has ben pontedou tha Sebopenbaae Goes ot span why the will neds to obec lel epace and time a all. given hat the wil i ail that hee i ulimate reality” But This tha even witht svaling funcves too deeply in his metaphysis, one could argue hat the wl’ Inerhaustible dese for fe leads ot ranting lf n whatever form, ‘bal. owm svn nature that makes tener in he phenomenal ‘orl, subject othe imitans of pce time nd caasliy, ‘When Schopeahanr wes that he wil objec ise ino the wold ‘hase manifxatons ged ino four categories: inorganic mater, vegeta ‘if animal and human if. Man is the topo is ere on he grounds that through him Knowledge of the wil i most enily sequired. The ‘heoomendl word is for Schopenhe the "indies ohjecifeation of the ‘Spagetti oe en Nw Ye Sp see canine in epi nym BM Sam, Sep ae a Ke Pes Lend 98 1915 “pat, (Be Ons wd Was, tio wil" And yet, despite the plentinde of objets found inthe worl, ‘Schopenhauer adamant ht the wilt ot divided into each ck that the ‘est ste complete wil. Rather the wil s preset in ech of hem, Kit Indivsble sucht "IC per imposible, « nngle being, even the most insignifcan, were catrelytnnhled, be whole Word would inevitably be desooyed with ‘And here we have the crux ofthe problem which Schopenhaer ie faced rth namely how toeconile an nvble tempor! wil with plurality of ‘bjs in space and ine Inti wil ty to show Row bei rcceai ‘siough his recourse to the Plone Ideas sooms to be loatod in sre 10 {sede aesthetic within is ye, 2 not uncommon in his ay, ss exemplied i the meuphysc of Hegel, Fee and Sceling, ‘Te Platonic Leas are meant to have # meditoy role between the

    You might also like