________________
Comparative Aesthetics
113 siring itself, or from Voluntarism to Ro- "authentic," in enjoying self-willed, hence manticism. The thrill, zest, gusto, vivacity self-created and freely-chosen, value. experienced while enthusiastically desiring Quarrels between voluntarists and rocame to be regarded as a greater intrinsic manticists, compounded by disputes with value than satisfaction, which terminates varieties of rationalists, to say nothing of and thus destroys desire. Desirousness, hedonists,5 leave Western civilization still variously described as impulse, emotion, a caldron of seething issues, in aesthetics as or sentiment, and idealized as intense and well as religion and politics. The reasonprolonged, as exciting and as infinite, as will controversy has undergone many atvoluptuous and as heroic, appealed to the tempted reconciliations. William James young and healthy more frequently as food proposed a pragmatic compromise: By way supplies became more abundant. "To travel of criticizing the rationalistic doctine that hopefully is better than to arrive." 4 "Our "The good is that at which all things aim," reach exceeds our grasp, or what's a heaven he asserted that it is as true to say that for?” Feelings of enthusiasm are intuited things are good because we like them as as intrinsic values. Hence the aesthetic is that we like them because they are good. to be located in the enjoyment of impul. But discord continues. And the welter of siveness. Art works which stir our senti- variations of each of these theories may ments, arouse our impulses, inspire our en- leave an impression that Western civilizathusiasms, and prolong and intensify our tion thrives in a chaos of relativisms. Westyearnings should therefore be sought. Since ern aestheticians cannot be expected to give satisfactions diminish desire while frustra- a final definition of the nature of the aestrations intensify them, those bored with thetic so long as Western civilization canlesser stimuli deliberately seek the frustrat- not make up its collective mind. However, ing, the embarrassing, the mean, the unjust, as we shall see by observing Hindu and the cruel-not to produce evil but to mag- Chinese ideals, the persistent preoccupation nify that good which exists as intensity of of Western civilization with the reason-will feeling. The "dialectics of the Romantic controversy involves having its mind made soul" reveal the tortuous meanderings of up in certain very characteristic ways. Only an enthusiast in search of ever more pi- after understanding how tenaciously Oriquant excitement for his flagging energies. ental civilizations reject both reason and The art idealized by the Romanticist is will as having either status or value in ultinot "restful” but “arresting," not familiar mate reality can we recognize how distincbut novel, not formal but unique, not clear tively reason and will have shaped the ways but intriguing.
in which the Western mind is made up. Idealization of willfulness not only promoted ambition, ideals of progress, and ap- 1 preciation of the beauty of "success" but also appeared in Lutheran and Pietistic Hindu civilization, although flourishing faith (and "the beauty of holiness"), in with a jungle-like plethora of theories and Bergson's élan vital, in Freudian libida- practices, also seems to embody a dominatnism, in pragmatism's "will to believe," and ing pervasive mood. Within this mood the in existentialism. Extreme existentialists issue of whether reason or will is more ultiwill good to exist even where otherwise mate, either as reality or value, is relatively there is none. Kierkegaard demanded the insignificant. Both represent either illusory existence of God and of goodness even when or degenerate forms of being and value, and rational argument demonstrated their non- function more often as evils than as goods. existence. Atheistic existentialists urge us to The dominating ideals of Hindu and Westcontemplate the valuelessness of non-exist- ern civilizations oppose each other so comence so that we may be prompted to will pletely that what is taken as most real, and some value into what pitiful little existence good, in the one is regarded as least real, we have. The aesthetic is located in the and good, in the other. Not only do both
The donizations opptaken as mostleast real,
