Paul Stone (first off the mark), David Ritchie and Joerg Gruel are the winners, of course. Luckily for my health, I wasn't reading Burke at 2:00 am, but was leafing through a notebook I'd used in an aesthetics course in 2004, where we read Kant's Critique of the Power of Judgment, and of necessity compared his view of the sublime with Burke's.
On the page in question, I'd written 'aesthetic reactions universal human sentiments 'It is our ignorance of things that causes all our admiration and chiefly excites our passion a vast plain vs. the ocean 'terror, obscurity _not_ clearness 'proportion not the cause of beauty in vegetables'I grant though that these lines may have been meant as fragments of a bad poem; 2004 was a long time ago. Contestants will have noted that I gave Burke an 'is,' which was not in the original section heading. Sorry.
Robert Paul, recoveringGruel> Burke is, in my view, a little strange when it comes to stalks and trunks:
How does the slender stalk of the rose agree with the bulky head under which it bends? The great bag hanging to the bill of a pelican, a thing highly useful to this animal, would be likewise as beautiful in our eyes. I need say little on the trunk of the elephant, of such various usefulness, and which is so far from contributing to his beauty.But then, I like elephants. David Ritchie, Portland, Oregon On Nov 18, 2009, at 11:05 PM, Robert Paul wrote:Proportion is not the cause of beauty in vegetables
------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
