“A Philosophical Enquiry into the ORIGIN of our IDEAS of the Sublime and Beautiful.”
A Philosophical Enquiry into the ORIGIN of our IDEAS of the Sublime and Beautiful.
By Edmund Burke
Annotated and Edited by Tom McBratney
Introduction:
In order to understand Burke’s argument on the beautiful and sublime we must first understand the definition of both terms as he provides. Burke states that beauty is subjective to the eye, a color can be beautiful and delicate yet not sublime. Burke’s definition of sublime is much more extreme, he posits that the sublime is terrifying, a whole body experience of awe. The oxford dictionary makes a similar separation of the two. Its definition of beauty reads, “excelling in grace of form, charm of coloring, and other qualities which delight the eye” while sublime reads “affecting the mind with a sense of overwhelming grandeur or irresistible power” (Oxford). Burke addresses the difference between perception in these two terms. His work from 1757, “A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful” helps discern between these two. In the sects transcribed, Burke goes into detail on the difference between pain and pleasure as well as novelty as a lesser calling. Novelty can only draw our curiosity once, after you know something its novelty drops and leaves the viewer in disdain. I chose to modernize spelling in one area, the first “s” of words looked like an “f” throughout the writing, I chose to change that to make the reading easier for the modern viewer. However, I kept the rest of the spellings and punctuation intact in order to represent Burke’s work in the most historically accurate version possible. Therefore, there could be no way to misinterpret or bring any of my own opinion into the transcription. Works that deal with philosophical concepts such as Burke’s can be difficult to understand, I utilized my side points as ways to help create greater fluidity of reading. In a section I found confusing I would help clarify to the reader with these notes.
A
Philosophical Enquiry
into the
ORIGIN of our IDEAS
of the
Sublime and Beautiful.
PART I.
SECT. I.
NOVELTY.
THE first and simplest emotion which we discover in the human mind, is Curiosity. By curiosity, I mean whatever desire we have for, or whatever pleasure we take in, novelty. We see children perpetually running from place to place to hunt out something new; they catch with great eagerness, and with very little choice, at whatever comes before them; their attention is engaged by every thing, because every thing has , in that stage of life, the charm of novelty to recommend it. But as those things which engage us merely by their novelty cannot attach us for any length of time, curiosity is the most superficial of all the affections it changes its object perpetually; it has an appetite which is very sharp but very easily satisfied; and it has always an appearance of giddiness, restlessness and anxiety. Curiosity from its nature is a very active principle; it quickly runs over the greatest part of its objects, and soon exhausts the variety which is commonly to be met with in naturel the same things make frequent returns, and they return with less and less of any agreeable effect. [1]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 minds by means of other powers besides novelty in them, and of other passions besides curiosity in ourselves. These powers and passions shall be considered in their place. But whatever these powers are, or upon what principle soever they affect the mind, it is absolutely necessary that they should not be exerted in those things which a daily and vulgar se have brought into a stale unaffected familiarity. Some degree of novelty must be one of the materials in every instrument which works upon the mind; and curiosity blends itself more or less with all our passions.
SECT. II.
PAIN and PLEASURE.
IT seems then necessary towards moving the passions of people advanced in life to any considerable degree, that the objects designed for that purpose, besides their being in some measure new, should be capable of excited pain or pleasure from other causes. Pain and pleasure are simple ideas, incapable of definition. People are not liable to be mistaken in their feelings, but they are very frequently wrong in the names they give them, and in their reasonings about them. Many are of opinion that pain aresis necessarily from the removal of some pleasure; as they think pleasure does from the ceasing or diminution of some pain. For my part, 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 neither of pain nor pleasure, which I call a state of indifference. When I am carried from this state into a state of actual pleasure, it does not appear necessary that I should pass through the medium of any sort of pain. If in such a state of indifference, or ease, or tranquility, or call it what you please, you were to be suddenly entertained with a concert of music; or suppose some object of a fine shape, and bright lively colors to be presented before your; or imagine your smell is gratified with the fragrance of a rose; or if without any previous thrift your were to drink of some pleasant kind of wine; or to taste of some sweet-meat without being hungry; in all the several senses, of hearing, smelling, and tasting, you undoubtedly find a pleasure; yet if I enquire into the state of your mind previous to these gratifications, you will hardly tell me that they found you in any kind of pain; or having satisfied these several senses with their several pleasure, will you say that any pain has succeeded, though the pleasure is absolutely over? Suppose on the other hand, a man in the same state of indifference , to receive a violent blow, or to drink of some bitter potion, or to have his ears wounded with some harsh and grating sound; here is no removal of pleasure; and yet here is felt, in every sense which is affected, pain very distinguishable. [2]It may be said perhaps, that the pain in these cases had its rise from the removal of the pleasure which the mind enjoyed before, though that pleasure of so low a degree as to be perceived only by the removal. But this seems to me a subtilty, that is not discoverable in nature. For if, previous to the pain, I do not feel any actual pleasure, I have no reason to judge that any such thing exists; since pleasure is only pleasure as it is felt. The same may be said of pain, and with equal reason. I can never persuade myself that pleasure and pain are mere relations, which can only exist as they are contrasted: but I think I can discern clearly that there are positive pains and pleasures which do not at all depend upon each other. Nothing is more certain to my own feelings than this. There is nothing which I can distinguish in my mind with more clearness than the three states, of indifference, of pleasure, and of pain. [3]Every one of these I can perceive without any sort of idea of its relation to anything else. Caius is afflicted with a fit of cholic, this man is actually in pain; stretch Caius upon the rack, he will feel a much greater pain; but does this pain of the rack arise from the removal of any pleasure or a pain just as we are pleased to call it? [4]
Bibliography
Smith, Laura. “Beautiful, Sublime.” Beautiful, Sublime, The University of Chicago, 2003, https://csmt.uchicago.edu/glossary2004/beautifulsublime.htm.
Parkin, Charles. “Edmund Burke.”Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., https://www.britannica.com/biography/Edmund-Burke-British-philosopherandstatesman.
Munro, Thomas. “Aesthetics.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., https://www.britannica.com/topic/aesthetics#ref114903.
“Oxford Learner's Dictionaries: Find Definitions, Translations, and Grammar Explanations at Oxford Learner's Dictionaries.” Oxford Learner's Dictionaries | Find Definitions, Translations, and Grammar Explanations at Oxford Learner's Dictionaries, https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/.
“Old English” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, https://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,5753,-24563,00.html#:~:text=Why%20in%20old%20English%20text%20was%20an%20's,written%20as%20an%20'f'%3F&text=It%20wasn't%3B%20it%20was,or%20after%20a%20tall%20s.
Burke speaks on the childhood charm of curiosity, yet he also talks about novelty and how the two are related. Curiosity, according to Burke, comes from our need for survival. Like most animals we must understand our surroundings completely in order to be best suited to survive within them. Curiosity as a child helps us understand our world for this very purpose. However, we can only see something for the first time once, and therefore curiosity fades with novelty. Our predecessors learned in this way, trying a plant or food type for the first time and gauging the reaction. In the same way a child might try a food and decide based on taste or reaction if the food is agreeable. The novelty of the item makes the child want to taste, however the following reaction to the food will dictate the response from there out. If the food is tasty then the child will ask for more, if the food gives an allergic reaction the child will not ask for it again. Burke states that if novelty was the only human desire as soon as we had first taken in the world there could be no other way to exist then in a state of depression and “loathing”. ↑
Burke describes a “state of indifference” as a place in between pleasure and pain. He posits that there is no need for humans to have a feeling at all times, sometimes we are both without pain or pleasure. In a purgatory state between emotions, there is no affection or disaffection. When someone is sitting, in a chair that is not over comfortable or painful, is there a feeling? If you clear your mind and take on no action, then Burke states there is nothing and assigning a feeling is redundancy. In fact it is only because of this state of indifference that we can experience pain and pleasure. If we were always in pain then pain would be our state of indifference, because we would be so used to pain that we would become indifferent to it. The same can be said about pleasure, especially in the modern world where we have so many pleasurable amenities we have become dull towards. I am in an air conditioned home, protected from the elements, writing on a supercomputer, for my predecessors this would be a massive state of pleasure compared to what they endure. Yet for myself it falls towards a state of indifference, I am used to my privilege and have become apathetic toward it. Burke’s teaching can help humanity become more mindful of what they are indifferent to, what their base state truly is. At what level of comfort am I without pain or pleasure? Where do I mark my ambiguity? Each person has a different answer, yet in questioning our state of indifference we can view our lives through different perspectives. ↑
Pain does not replace pleasure, nor vice versa. Burke makes it clear that he believes they exist remotely from one another. For example, if I am walking and stub my toe the pain that I feel does not erase pleasure, it simply appears and then fades. Positive pain or pleasure coexist but do not correlate to one another. Burke surmises that there are three states, of indifference, of pain, and of pleasure. The concept that pain and pleasure were not related was quite a new thought at the time and disputed by many other philosophers. Some stated that pleasure could not occur without pain, that in order to experience one there had to have been the other. Yet Burke was steadfast in his belief, he could not see a scale between them. If you think of pain and pleasure as a line, then Burke would believe there are two lines. One for pain and one for pleasure, not a continuous connected line, but one that is split. Because pain and pleasure can coexist but do not remove one another from occurrence. ↑
Above you can see the mentioned “f” instead of “s” in the printing of the book. While reading “arife from the removal of any pleafure” we can see the “s” character has been seemingly replaced with an “f” looking symbol. This practice arises from the old English learning where there were two separate “s” strokes. A long and tall “s” was used at the start or middle of words while the normal “s” stroke was used at the end. The difference could also have been used to denote pronunciation; the “f” used to represent a soft sound while the “s” a harsher variant. Fortunately, the practice no longer is utilized which allows for much quicker reading and was why I chose to implement a different spelling in this case. ↑
We use cookies to analyze our traffic. Please decide if you are willing to accept cookies from our website. You can change this setting anytime in Privacy Settings.