The sociologist and philosopher Norbert Elias dedicated in his two-volume magnum opus "On the process of civilization "by 1939, a chapter to the topic of the nasal cleansing. Interestingly, this is something also listed under the heading "aesthetics".
The handkerchief, as Elias, is a relatively recent invention. In the Middle Ages people had used to clean her nose, the bare hands. A rule was there at the table but already given: the right hand for the food, left for the vacuum. Here are but a purely pragmatic reasons were decisive, such as reducing health risks in society. And that that was only at the table. In Italy have finally his handkerchief as a tool to free the nose established. In addition to the suppression of a natural instinct (ie the blowing of the nose), the handkerchief has even developed a prestige object. But every practice brings with it a bad habit and so have developed the habit to consider blowing the nose after his own work in a handkerchief. According to Elias, the expression of the natural instinct of seeking to position itself a new way of removal. Especially in children, this archaic drive show today. Elias now understands morality and its opposite, but as concepts whose objects are always on the people. It was perceived as irreverence, a view used to throw a handkerchief. This leads to a sense of shame that keeps one person from view. Education here seek to suppress immorality by acting as a conditioning agent hygiene and morality together equate external constraints, and so gradually umwandele to self-constraints. The penalty will become a robotics and so man ashamed even if far and wide, no fellow human being was present when he looks into his second-hand tissue.
A classic, Freudian dilemma:
The custom, as a social norm, characterizes the superego, which is now struggling against it, trying to enforce the natural instinct of blowing the nose. Normally, it is possible the ego to find a compromise. More and more often, however, the stronger the moral instincts are trying to push, I take refuge in the neuroses. For the customs were adapted to the immorality and vice versa, so that an increasing restrictions are an ever-increasing drive towards energy. Where that leads, which is an important question.
But where lies the link between Elias' theories and aesthetics of our subject?
from a natural Engines such as blowing the nose is in the company of all a question of ethics. Dirt that collects in the nose, is often harmful. And at a social event such as a round table, it in itself is useful to keep this filth of contact points between the present order to protect yourself and others. Another purely pragmatic considerations may have led to the handkerchief. to blow his nose in one hand and eat with the other has been so long in order until you need both hands for one of the two activities. A cloth in which it dismisses the secretions helps more so. The handkerchief is now but a status symbol, because who can afford a cloth, only to the fact to collect mucus, has made it obvious. Moreover, in contrast to the use, man makes even a piece of jewelry from them. Here, therefore, affect ethics and aesthetics, albeit involuntarily.
Based on Ludwig Wittgenstein's dictum "Aesthetics and ethics are one." (In: Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, set 6421), we look at ethics and aesthetics in general. And indeed, we recognize that they have some parallels. Both ethics and aesthetics are of the culture-dependent and they are both subject to a certain zeitgeist. Their Enste Hung is closely related. Man is anxious and that instinctive, one's own Life more pleasant. All that his life or detrimental to the pleasant is a hindrance, he will try to avoid. Living together in community requires certain rules, ethics, and who can also be supported by the beautiful, which is an advantage. Amazingly, however, which has to serve something as natural as sneezing, for that.
The handkerchief, as Elias, is a relatively recent invention. In the Middle Ages people had used to clean her nose, the bare hands. A rule was there at the table but already given: the right hand for the food, left for the vacuum. Here are but a purely pragmatic reasons were decisive, such as reducing health risks in society. And that that was only at the table. In Italy have finally his handkerchief as a tool to free the nose established. In addition to the suppression of a natural instinct (ie the blowing of the nose), the handkerchief has even developed a prestige object. But every practice brings with it a bad habit and so have developed the habit to consider blowing the nose after his own work in a handkerchief. According to Elias, the expression of the natural instinct of seeking to position itself a new way of removal. Especially in children, this archaic drive show today. Elias now understands morality and its opposite, but as concepts whose objects are always on the people. It was perceived as irreverence, a view used to throw a handkerchief. This leads to a sense of shame that keeps one person from view. Education here seek to suppress immorality by acting as a conditioning agent hygiene and morality together equate external constraints, and so gradually umwandele to self-constraints. The penalty will become a robotics and so man ashamed even if far and wide, no fellow human being was present when he looks into his second-hand tissue.
A classic, Freudian dilemma:
The custom, as a social norm, characterizes the superego, which is now struggling against it, trying to enforce the natural instinct of blowing the nose. Normally, it is possible the ego to find a compromise. More and more often, however, the stronger the moral instincts are trying to push, I take refuge in the neuroses. For the customs were adapted to the immorality and vice versa, so that an increasing restrictions are an ever-increasing drive towards energy. Where that leads, which is an important question.
But where lies the link between Elias' theories and aesthetics of our subject?
from a natural Engines such as blowing the nose is in the company of all a question of ethics. Dirt that collects in the nose, is often harmful. And at a social event such as a round table, it in itself is useful to keep this filth of contact points between the present order to protect yourself and others. Another purely pragmatic considerations may have led to the handkerchief. to blow his nose in one hand and eat with the other has been so long in order until you need both hands for one of the two activities. A cloth in which it dismisses the secretions helps more so. The handkerchief is now but a status symbol, because who can afford a cloth, only to the fact to collect mucus, has made it obvious. Moreover, in contrast to the use, man makes even a piece of jewelry from them. Here, therefore, affect ethics and aesthetics, albeit involuntarily.
Based on Ludwig Wittgenstein's dictum "Aesthetics and ethics are one." (In: Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, set 6421), we look at ethics and aesthetics in general. And indeed, we recognize that they have some parallels. Both ethics and aesthetics are of the culture-dependent and they are both subject to a certain zeitgeist. Their Enste Hung is closely related. Man is anxious and that instinctive, one's own Life more pleasant. All that his life or detrimental to the pleasant is a hindrance, he will try to avoid. Living together in community requires certain rules, ethics, and who can also be supported by the beautiful, which is an advantage. Amazingly, however, which has to serve something as natural as sneezing, for that.
- explanatory and further thoughts on Jochen Ebmeier Blog: ethics and aesthetics are one .
- with Herbert Huber: ethics as an aesthetic phenomenon
- Jeff Chi: Why can not shit in public! [Click ] OR fundamentally at: Spink & Turmina
-------------------------------- -----------------
Formal:
Blog Posted by: Sören Meyer
rate: Q 3 / 4 pl1 and pl2
Date: 04:11:10
topic: Norbert Elias, aesthetics, about the aesthetic effect of blowing the nose
0 comments:
Post a Comment