|
Re: From the Sublime to the ...
|
John Wager
|
Mar 06, 2004 21:25 PST
|
If we can beat Kant more to death than we've already been doing so, I
think he offers "idea" as "idea" and "ideal" as a sensory image of the
idea. The "ideal" can't be fully realized; we can't really "see" a
perfect representation of an idea. But we need "ideals" as images to
remind us of ideas. As long as we remember that ideals are only images,
they aren't misleading.
jlspe-@aol.com wrote:
| | In a message dated 3/6/2004 10:20:10 PM Eastern Standard Time,
alok-@vsnl.com writes:
Stay with the name - and "ideas" indicates our "philosophical" aspirations
without getting us all tangled up in academic boundary niceties, seems to
me.
Alok Rai
Dept of English,
Delhi University,
Delhi,India
----
This reminds me of something else Sibley says. He notes, wisely, that we
speak of 'ideals' of beauty, but not of ideals of ugliness. Surely if 'ideal' is
just 'idea', why can't one have an ideal of ugliness? (How can the suffix '-al'
make all the difference?) I guess that's the trick with French joilaid, too.
Cheers,
JL
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
|
|
 |
|
