Michael Martin on Hume on Taste

迈克尔·马丁谈休谟谈品味

Philosophy Bites

社会与文化

2013-08-04

17 分钟
PDF

单集简介 ...

David Hume's 'Of the Standard of Taste' focuses on judgements about beauty in writing. Can we say with any authority that one writer or work is better than another? Michael Martin gives a clear analysis of Hume's essay on this topic in this episode of the Philosophy Bites podcast. Reliable texts of Hume's works are available from www.davidhume.org
更多

单集文稿 ...

  • This is philosophy bites with me, Nigel.

  • Warburton, and me, David Edmonds.

  • If you enjoy philosophy bytes, please support us.

  • We're currently unfunded and all donations would be gratefully received.

  • For details, go to www.philosophybites.com.

  • I think you'll all agree that Conan Doyle was a better writer than Agatha Christie, that godfather one is a superior movie to Godfather three, and that the Beatles were more talented than Justin Bieber.

  • Indisputable.

  • David Hume reflected on such judgments in his very short but very influential essay of the standard of Taste, a text which has been expertly dissected by Michael Martin of University College London and UC Berkeley.

  • Mike Martin, welcome to Philosophy Bites.

  • Hello.

  • The topic we're going to focus on is Hume on taste.

  • We're going to be talking about a 34 paragraph essay.

  • Could you just say a little bit about that?

  • Sure.

  • Hume wrote this essay of the standard of taste in haste to make up a gap in a book of his essays called four Dissertations, which he published in February 1757.

  • And yet it's generally recognized as a key work in the history of aesthetics.

  • Absolutely, though, of course, Hume himself would have labeled it criticism.

  • The term aesthetics only becomes popular in the 19th century, so Hume is now standardly used in contrast to Immanuel Kant.

  • So we kind of use the labels of empiricist for Hume, and also the idea that he's some kind of subjectivist.

  • Our taste or our sense of what is beautiful is located just in us, whereas Kant wants to emphasise, although he doesn't locate beauty out in the world, that there are nonetheless matters of necessity or correctness, such that it's required of us to respond to the beautiful in a certain way.