Hume maintains an empirically difficult position due to the vastness of discord of taste that he cites early as unavoidable and obvious. There are classics though that have endured the test of time; Homer is as appreciated, if not more so, than he was in millennia past. Therefore, he concludes, there are certain principles of approbation and blame. If these fail, of course, it must be due to some defect in the critic. An individual in fever cannot rely on sense of taste, a person affected with jaundice annot rely on color...etc... A quality of a critic then must be to be free of bias. His theory of superior critics, the views of which is that upon which we must base our own tastes, depends on this notion. So then, here is my question: do you think it is possible to achieve such a level of disinterest? Hume himself admits that even critics may disagree on some particulars due to the presence of bias. Bias must fall along a continuum; surely it is possible to be less biased or more biased than another, so perhaps the critic just needs to be as unbias as possible? But would this not then require further elucidation, to wit, the desired point along the continuum?
Question in full? Can a critic, can a human being exist, even temporarily in a state of meaningful (excluding sleep, coma, death...etc...) unbias? If not, how unbias ought he or she to be? Does there exist this desired extent of objectivity?
There is no way to trifle individuality, this being said there is no conscious way to be an unbiased human being. A person’s history, inner self, and outer world will forever affect their individuality therefore always effecting their perception causing them to always be at some level a bias source. As it comes to the level in which a person can be bias, I don’t believe there is a justified scale of objectivity in which someone could be deemed a perfect judge or critic . If I am correct about this theory, I contradict Homers belief that the critic has some type of defect, and that his certain principles of approbation and blame can not accurately be used to critic or judge a piece of art. My question is; is it truly possible to judge art, or will it always be too much of a subjective judgment?
ReplyDeleteI responded to this on my blog, and here:
ReplyDeleteThe question of whether a human being can exist without a biased perception is interesting and has many different angles from which it can be "attacked." For one, we've learned that your perception of something is influenced by relative experience, as an empiricist would argue. This explains a lot of psychological phenomena - typically phobias and taste aversions - but also allows plenty of room for bias based on the previous experiences with the object or situation being perceived. Also, this brings about a confusing question; if you perceive based on experience, then how did you perceive something for the first time?
Now, if you take the question from a skeptical approach, you are arguing that sensory perception is fairly subjective and, although Hume argues it is "true for everyone," we don't actually perceive the object as it is, we just attribute different features to it as we perceive them. In this case, I would argue that there is room for a few unbiased critics if they completely subjugate themselves from their perceptions and concentrate on the axiological aspects of the work at hand.
In Hume's text, we learned that there are unbiased critics in the world, and although few, they can give a perfectly unprejudiced view. They have certain questionable attributes to hold, however. As Hume says:
"Strong sense, united to delicate sentiment, improved by practice, perfected by comparison, and cleared of all prejudice, can alone entitle critics to this valuable character; and the joint verdict of such, wherever they are to be found, is the true standard of taste and beauty."
Even if some of Hume's views are seen as controversial, he does depict an accurate description of an unbiased critic, so if one exists, they would portray these attributes, even though some are questionable in whether or not they form bias or can be achieved by a conscious human.
I responded to your question on my blog.
ReplyDelete*My follow-up question is, how can a person be unbiased if his or her perceptions are based on experience, which pre-disposes an individual for similar encounters in the future? (keep in mind, bias does not have to be a situation of how high you rate the art, but how you perceive it differently from a neutral observer)*
ReplyDelete