In the first introduction to his Critique of Judgment, Immanuel Kant levels a criticism of Burke which is precisely the opposite of the relativist’s Kant charges that Burke does not go far enough. If Burke associates the sublime with distress, the relativist would argue, then that association implies nothing beyond Burke’s own experience perhaps Burke was a masochist. Therefore, the contemporary observer is likely either to dispute Edmund Burke’s definition of the sublime, or to say that Burke goes too far by even attempting to define such a subjective term. But we do not immediately associate the sublime with self-preservation if ‘distress’ is experienced, it is experienced when the ‘sublime’ moment has ended and not because we perceive distress as part of what defines that moment itself. That its strongest emotion is an emotion of distress, and that no pleasure from a positive cause belongs to it.” (Burke, p.79)Īn inquiry into the sublime is worthwhile if only because the observation above seems counterintuitive: in current parlance, the ‘sublime’ is often taken to describe one or another sensual pleasure, as in a ‘sublime piece of music’, a ‘sublime kiss’, or even, to quote The New York Times food critic, “at Chez Pushcart, the cuisine is sublime.” The connection between these pleasures and self-preservation may be apparent – as in the case of food – or it may elude us, as in the case of music. That it is therefore one of the most affecting we have. “…my first observation… will be found very nearly true that the sublime is an idea belonging to selfpreservation. SUBSCRIBE NOW Articles Burke, Kant and the Sublime by Gur Hirshberg
0 kommentar(er)
