Ok so I figured I look up to see how The Bedford Glossary of Critical and Literary Terms defined aesthetics. I knew of the word but not really what the word means. So I was not that much off on my guess of the term once I did look up the definition. It sounds nice, "(1) the philosophical approach, which poses questions relating to the nature or the definition of beauty; and (2) the psychological approach, which examines the perception, orgins, and effects of beauty. (Murfin and Ray 6) Now that is a nice definition. I really mean that. I like it. I like the way it sounds. I like that it searches for the "truth". You can't b/s Aesthetics, no you can't and it won't let you. Thats the cool thing about this idea, that in the end if one were you use it properly than you wouldn't be left outside trying to get in because you would already be there. You would know the true meaning of whatever it was you were reading or doing whatever you would do. Wow that sounds matrix-y. I dunno, whatever, it just seems refreshing to have a way to just get in there and find the truth and be done. Maybe I'm trying to read into it too much, maybe I have a huge urge to find the truth. No probably not.
Comments (1)
First off, kudos to you for actually saying what you said in the title. Very impressive. But really, searching for truth and beauty at the same time is really taking what Keats said in Ode on a Grecian Urn. "Beauty is truth, truth beauty." Now, while aesthetics could absolutely be the best approach on that poem, a tale like Benito Cereno is something completely different, which is what makes this course so challenging. I think you make very valid points on the overall definition of aesthetics, and your approach to this is very impressive, considering that this is a first time blogging activity.
Posted by Jason Pugh | February 1, 2007 12:21 PM
Posted on February 1, 2007 12:21