Hume's Fork v. Rules of composition

[clueless]

How does Hume's fork relate to his rules of composition?

[Chan Tiger]

Hume's fork is pretty straightforward: according to Hume, there are only two reputable domains of human knowledge, that concerning "Relations of Ideas" (a priori, analytic propositions; mathematics, etc) and that concerning "Matters of Fact" (a posteriori, synthetic propositions; empirical or scientific statements, etc).

His "rules of composition" are much less intuitive. I'm assuming you're going off of The Standard of Taste? Basically, my understanding is that Hume claims that the way artists formulate rules for their craft via observation of Matters of Fact rather than a priori Relations of Ideas:

It is evident that none of the rules of composition are fixed by reasonings a priori [i.e. not "relations of ideas") or can be esteemed abstract conclusions of the understanding, from comparing those habitudes and relations of ideas, which are eternal and immutable. Their foundation is the same with that of all the practical sciences, experience; nor are they any thing but general observations, concerning what has been universally found to please in all countries and in all ages. (in other words, they are observable matters of fact) Many of the beauties of poetry and even of eloquence are founded on falsehood and fiction, on hyperboles, metaphors, and an abuse or perversion of terms from their natural meaning. To check the sallies of the imagination, and to reduce every expression to geometrical truth and exactness, would be the most contrary to the laws of criticism; because it would produce a work, which, by universal experience, has been found the most insipid and disagreeable. But though poetry can never submit to exact truth, it must be confined by rules of art, discovered to the author either by genius or observation

Basically, According to Hume, there are no universal, a priori rules about what is aesthetically pleasing, so the "rules of composition" are derived through the second prong of his fork ("Matters of Fact").

In other words, the artist or author must seek to please his or her audience. The artist discovers what is pleasing through observation, i.e. people find certain colors or certain arrangements of syllables pleasing. From these observations, one generalizes to certain rules of the craft. While it's not as precise as science (i.e. "poetry can never be submitted to an exact truth"), art still has an empirical component.

Hope that helps! :)

[schrodinger]

I think it was Dumas, who said that on a journey it is not half so important to know where one is going, as to know with whom one is travelling. In some way I think that applies here.:think:

[Chan Tiger]

Hi Schrodinger,

I think it was Dumas, who said that on a journey it is not half so important to know where one is going, as to know with whom one is travelling. In some way I think that applies here.:think:

I'm assuming 'clueless' here is in a philosophy class of some sort, and is probably trying to write a paper or study for an exam (I can't really think why else somebody would ask a rather technical question like the one in the OP).

If that's the case, hopefully what my response has done is nudge them in the right direction without totally doing their work for them. ;)

[schrodinger]

Hi Schrodinger,



I'm assuming 'clueless' here is in a philosophy class of some sort, and is probably trying to write a paper or study for an exam (I can't really think why else somebody would ask a rather technical question like the one in the OP).



Yes, the manner in which the question was asked led me to the same conclusion. And the way in which you presented the answer on a silver platter, prompted my “quotation” by Dumas. However, I thought my comment was sufficiently hiding out in the open so it would go unnoticed. But you are obviously smarter than the average bear! Er, correction; make that Tiger!