Paradoxical Tragedy

Philosophers have nighwhat successions felt that the felicity we take in calamity presents a challenge to reflection, an explanatory challenge that opposite sources of aesthetic enjoyment--comedy or horror, for instance--also present.(1) The idea is that our satisfaction is ultimately puzzleical, that its segments argon uncertain on purely formal grounds, and so some(prenominal) p machinationicular(a) explanation of the satisfaction is called for. If we delight in honoring the downfall of the illustrious, why do we? This type of question does non seem to arise, or arise with the akin urgency, for some(prenominal) new(prenominal) kinds of aesthetic enjoyment. To take a simple example, our enjoyment of Matisses The rally does not ordinarily provoke bafflement about how it is that we be able to find graceful, expressive physical activity delight to contemplate. My own thought, however, is that on that point is nothing formally unstable in the fragments that con tribute to the unreflective enjoyment of tragedy, and thus no special explanations of the machination are indispensabilityed. What we rather do sine qua non to excogitate is the sense that tragedy is paradoxical, and I shall suggest that a run rationalist picture of the mind creates that sense. I We first need to establish clearer about the specific particles that collectively generate the uphold paradox. A triad of elements would seem to be necessary. The first element is straightforwardly identifiable: we do enjoy tragedies--at least some well-wrought ones, some of the time. These qualifications are important because a great numerous tragedies, like many other kinds of art, are unsuccessfully or imperfectly unfeignedized. Although we might figure that a failed survey fuck still yield pleasure, and thereby help to yield a paradox, it is the ack at a timeledged monuments that make the potential problem most(prenominal) interesting. Unless we are children or squeami sh adults, we do not hightail it performanc! es of Othello, or avoid reading The Mayor of Casterbridge; on the contrary, we ordinarily render out such experiences as these works bid and think ourselves better for having had them. The punt element is a micro much tall(prenominal) to state precisely, but only a little. We could develop with a minimal specification to the effect that there is something caustic about the aesthetically successful tragedy. (I shall omit `aesthetically successful from now on, but the phrase is to be assumed.) We may past raise specify the unpleasantness by facial expression any that part of our turned on(p) response to tragedy is disagreeably talk (we feel ruthfulness for the sad hero, and sorrow is annoying) or that the guinea pig yield(2) of tragedy (what the work is about, namely a trusted time of events involving a certain character) is pesky. Which of these things we express affects the convention of the intended paradox: the first pass on place the problem fundamental ly in the space of the emotions, whereas the second will place it in the relationship between representations and real things. For my purposes it makes no difference which shape we insist on.

More should be said about the strong point of calling either the excited response or the event point disagreeable, since in these contexts `disagreeable (or `unpleasant) flock be very unhelpful. A subject matter is an purpose of thought, and without further comment we pip nothing by saying that an object of thought is disagreeable (does it hurt to think about a subject matter?). Perhaps it is enough to say that the sorrow we feel is not an emotion we would intentionally cul! tivate, at least outside the theatre,(3) or that a tragic parliamentary law of events is not a sequence that we, as reasonable or decent persons, would ever desire to initiate or assist. I assume that some commentary along these lines is correct. The third element is perhaps the most difficult of all to state, even crudely, nevertheless it is arguably the most important. In an obscure way, the satisfaction interpreted in tragedy derives from the disagreeable subject matter (or its accessory emotion), and this derivation is not barely (or not even) causal.(4) The exalted claims advance on behalf of tragic art are surely move by the sheer visionary and expressive force of this art, and that power has to be intimately affiliated to the dark and serious subjects with which the art deals. It would be an astounding coincidence--too astounding, we should surmise--if tragic satisfaction and the subject matter of tragedy were only contingently relate to each other. If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website: BestEssayCheap.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: cheap essay