Reflections before reading: I have never really read Hume before so I feel like I have very little background knowledge going into this text, except that I have the feeling that I know it from somewhere before. Like a youtube video or so. It was written in 1757.
Inititally it seems that Hume is trying to figure out what it is that constitutes the ability of people to have different opinions.
He thinks that opinions about things like ”beauty” is something that people differ on more than appearance tells us but that in regards to science opinions are actually a lot more similar, even though they seem to be different. He seems to be thinking one sphere, ie. Of beauty and similar deals with particulars whilst the other mainly differes in regard to generals.
It seems that he thinks that ”found[ing] morality on sentiment” will think the difference among people’s opinions are many.
”The great unanimity is usually ascrubed to the influence of reason”
The rest of that paragraph was kind of hard to understand. I don’t really see what he is trying to say about the homeric characters that relate to the opening of the paragraph.
He seems to then talk about a play, but I don’t really get any larger idea from that.
He thinks there is little reason to having presuppositions regarding ethics, since it becomes circular then.
By Standard of Taste I assume he means some sort of ethical system.
The difference between judgement and sentiment causes (ethics?) to be very difficult to do.
”All sentiment is right, because sentiment has no referens other than itself,” (so it is subjective, as in aimed at the subject)
”Determinations of the understanding are not right, they have a referens beyond themselves.” (they are objective as they are aimed at the object)
No sentiment represents what is really in the object.
Beauty is based on individual’s sentiments, rather than some other shared ground. Everyone has their own sentiments.
”It is fruitless to dispute concerning tastes”
Common sense and philosophy agree on this.
However, one type of common sense does not, which is the kind about which authors are better than others (I think) → it seems impossible to agree that some authors are more according to one’s taste and not.
Can only be figured a posteriori
It feels like he begins talking about the theory of textual criticism but I am not really sure
Feels it is important to understand why classical works (like Homer) stand the test of time.
However, if ”foreigners” read Homer, they quickly find many faults in it.
Perhaps then it is ”blame” that Hume thinks can exist in ”all operations of the mind”
Sound and defective state
maybe sentiments change in people who have defective organs through which to perceive sentiments
Brings discussion towards the topic of delicacy, which requires a deep definition.
We need to depthen the delicacy of our senses if we want to really be able to perceive all things which can be perceived in an artwork (in the broadest sense, Hume takes wine as a a work of an art, in that sense) in order to be able to properly judge them.
Ie. it is always good to increase on a delicacy of taste
Hume seems to be almost doing some kind of Husserlian reduction when talking about how a critic may be able fully grasp the right sentiments from an object.’
Took a break on page 15
Continue next day
”when any work is addressed to the public, though I should have a fruebdship or enmity with the author, I must depart from this situation, and, considering myself as a man in general, forget, if possible , my individual being, and my peculiar circumstances.”
”Besides, every kind of composotion, even the most poetical, is nothing but a chain of propositions and reasonings;”
The principles of taste are the same in all people; but not everyone has the ability to really tell apart differences in differing works of art.
”That such a character is valuable and estimable, will be agreed by all mankind”
Some people will be universally acknowledged to have better taste than others.
It is easy to ascertain these things in practice, but difficult theoretically.
”Though men of delicate taste be rare, they are easily to be distinguished in society by the soundness of their understanding, and the superiority of their faculties above the rest of mankind.”
People are universally the same, but that sameness can ebb out and differ according to prejudice, lack of practice, and lack of delicacy.
We choose our favorite author as we do our friend, from conformity of humor and disposition.
We are all basically looking at the same object when pereiving art, but due to our different dispositions we draw out different things from it.
Time and culture seperates what we can easily find palatable however.
We need to pay close attention to the context of a text without apologising it.
Hume calls Catholics bigoted hehe.