I like things to be structured. I want to know what is expected of me and what I need to do to meet those expectations. My initial understanding of the first essay assignment made it seem like a simple task but thinking about it further the task seems to be more daunting. This is my first real philosophy class; I took Phil 101 last semester but that doesn't really count in my mind. As I said before, I like things that are structured and philosophy seems anything but structured. There are different thoughts and theories but they are all open ended and ready for interpretation.
I was just re-reading Ancient Art and Ritual and a sentence jumped out at me:
We mimic not only others but ourselves mechanically, even after all emotion proper to the act is dead; and then because mimicry has a certain ingenious charm, it becomes an end in itself for ritual, even for art.
If I'm understanding the author correctly I don't think I agree with her. If mimicry takes out the emotion from an act and is only going through the motion then how can it become an end in itself for ritual or art? If mimicry is what develops into a ritual or art then a ritual would have no emotion behind it. Ritual, in my opinion, is supposed to have an assortment of emotions behind it. Ritual is supposed to mean something for the people who practice it and art is supposed to make those who view or witness it feel something. If there is no emotion then it is just a group of people doing pointless motions. Maybe the authors intent is going over my head or I've spun the words in my head too many times to get the clear meaning.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So after asking about the quote and gaining a bit more insight I have reached a final conclusion. The author was indeed saying what I initially thought and I still disagree for the same reasons.
No comments:
Post a Comment