Interpretation - Hume - Of the Standard of Taste

Interpretation of David Hume’s,  “Of the Standard of Taste.”

            Throughout the world, there are differences in taste and people have the tendency to consider things inferior if they do conform to their established views.   Differences in taste are “greater in reality than in appearance.”  Language, through all cultures, has words that praise and words that blame.  These words have shared meaning in a general sense, but tend to take on individualistic meaning when used in particular situations.   The words mean more in reality, or personal situations, than they do in appearance, as abstract concepts without application.

            People tend to interpret the world through their own languages and attitudes.  Poems tend to praise the virtues and blame the vices.  Universally, people across cultures tend to have similar ideas of virtue and vice.  However, upon closer examination, it is found that there is great diversity in their application.   What is considered a virtuous act in one culture can be interpreted radically different in another.  It is natural to seek common rules that either affirm or reject notions of taste.

            There is a philosophy, attributed to common sense that considers all sentiments are accurate, as they only refer to themselves.  All judgments are considered wrong as their application always refer to things beyond themselves.  This philosophy sets forth that all perceptions are valid as the mind forms relationships between objects and observations.  However, this argument falls apart when comparing similar, but disproportioned objects, as the degrees of taste become obvious.  One object will be clearly being more tasteful than another.

            Although it is difficult to establish exacting rules of composition for taste, people can look to the rules of art.  A great work of art generates, “A perfect serenity of mind, a recollection of thought, [and] a due attention to the object…” The sentiment of art comes from its “durable admiration,” and can be judged if it has survived “All the changes of climate, government, religion, and language.”  Admiration deepens the broader a piece is recognized, and the longer it has endured the test of time. 

            Universal notions of beauty are established, as sentiments of beauty have been determined through the great works and through time.  A mind unable to grasp a known beauty has some defect that prohibits it from feeling “the proper sentiment of beauty.”  Beauty and deformity are not qualities within objects, but there are things in objects that naturally inspire them.   Delicacy of taste is having refined senses that can identity, with precision, every part of a work, and has the ability to speak to each part’s pleasure or displeasure.  It is common for people to judge things without knowledge or understanding.  It sometimes takes a person with a delicacy of taste to reveal a beauty, and the best model for education is through “uniform consent and experience of nations and ages.”

            The people best suited to judge beauty are those who have developed the practice of discerning beauty.  The judge needs to free their mind from prejudices, view the work from different perspectives, and be able to compare and contrast the work with other pieces in order to determine degrees of excellence.  Someone who has not compared or understands the different types of beauty is not qualified to judge or pronounce and opinion.   Few people are qualified to judge as they have not acquired delicacy of taste.  The absence of a refined palette means the judge is unable to identify and understand the nuances of a piece.  Judges can be found through social consensus based on their soundness of interpretations and understanding.

            There are two sorts of taste that cannot be reconciled.  The first is culture in our age, and the second is humor.  Rather simply, it is difficult to get past what we believe and individual preferences. 

            There are differences between the ages.  Some differences are acceptable, and some are not.  Differences in mannerisms and beliefs are acceptable as they do not interfere with our beliefs.  However, differences in moral principles are not excusable.  It is too far a leap for people to accept morality that is vastly different from their own.  Religion is excusable as it surpasses the mundane, and it relates to theological concepts forged above “the cognizance of human understanding.”

PD 1923