I was impressed by that very eloquent passage from Santayana, a philosopher whom I never read during my graduate study of philosophy. It captures the essence of what Ayn Rand would later term "whim-worship." Can anyone provide a citation, so I can perhaps read it in context?
<<For the barbarian is the man who regards his passions as their…
I was impressed by that very eloquent passage from Santayana, a philosopher whom I never read during my graduate study of philosophy. It captures the essence of what Ayn Rand would later term "whim-worship." Can anyone provide a citation, so I can perhaps read it in context?
<<For the barbarian is the man who regards his passions as their own excuse for being; who does not domesticate them either by understanding their cause or by conceiving their ideal goal. He is the man who does not know his derivations nor perceive his tendencies, but who merely feels and acts, valuing in his life its force and its filling, but being careless of its purpose and its form. His delight is in abundance and vehemence; his art, like his life, shows an exclusive respect for quantity and splendour of materials. His scorn for what is poorer and weaker than himself is only surpassed by his ignorance of what is higher.>>
I groaned a little when I saw the notion of "domesticat[ing]" the passions, which is generally based on a Platonic view of the passions as irrational beasts (as in the charioteer metaphor from The Republic). But Santayana immediately followed up with an explanation of how one domesticates the passions: "either by understanding their cause or by conceiving their ideal goal." So the passions are not alien forces to be whipped into submission (the stereotypical Platonic view) or succumbed to (the emotionalist's view). It's not clear from this passage exactly what he thinks the passions are, but it is clear that they are subject to cause and effect, including teleological causation. Although this was an idea that had been percolating during Santayana's time, as psychology and therapy were in their youth, I hadn't before seen it so explicitly stated until significantly later.
I especially like the connection between the fundamental nature of a whim (which Ayn Rand defined as "a desire experienced by a person who does not know and does not care to discover its cause") and its destructive consequences. The person who has abandoned concern for the causes of his or her passions is left with "exclusive respect for quantity and splendor of materials" in the pursuit of personal values. (Although Santayana's passage applies specifically to art, I think the concept applies in one form or another to all values.)
And in the social realm, a life on the premise of unexamined emotions leads to social-hierarchical thinking, with its ultimate result being conflict and war. ("His scorn for what is poorer and weaker than himself is only surpassed by his ignorance of what is higher.")
This brief but insightful passage makes me want to read more by Santayana, a person I knew only by his reputation as an influential but not top-tier philosopher of the early 20th century. Thank you for introducing me to him!
I was impressed by that very eloquent passage from Santayana, a philosopher whom I never read during my graduate study of philosophy. It captures the essence of what Ayn Rand would later term "whim-worship." Can anyone provide a citation, so I can perhaps read it in context?
<<For the barbarian is the man who regards his passions as their own excuse for being; who does not domesticate them either by understanding their cause or by conceiving their ideal goal. He is the man who does not know his derivations nor perceive his tendencies, but who merely feels and acts, valuing in his life its force and its filling, but being careless of its purpose and its form. His delight is in abundance and vehemence; his art, like his life, shows an exclusive respect for quantity and splendour of materials. His scorn for what is poorer and weaker than himself is only surpassed by his ignorance of what is higher.>>
I groaned a little when I saw the notion of "domesticat[ing]" the passions, which is generally based on a Platonic view of the passions as irrational beasts (as in the charioteer metaphor from The Republic). But Santayana immediately followed up with an explanation of how one domesticates the passions: "either by understanding their cause or by conceiving their ideal goal." So the passions are not alien forces to be whipped into submission (the stereotypical Platonic view) or succumbed to (the emotionalist's view). It's not clear from this passage exactly what he thinks the passions are, but it is clear that they are subject to cause and effect, including teleological causation. Although this was an idea that had been percolating during Santayana's time, as psychology and therapy were in their youth, I hadn't before seen it so explicitly stated until significantly later.
I especially like the connection between the fundamental nature of a whim (which Ayn Rand defined as "a desire experienced by a person who does not know and does not care to discover its cause") and its destructive consequences. The person who has abandoned concern for the causes of his or her passions is left with "exclusive respect for quantity and splendor of materials" in the pursuit of personal values. (Although Santayana's passage applies specifically to art, I think the concept applies in one form or another to all values.)
And in the social realm, a life on the premise of unexamined emotions leads to social-hierarchical thinking, with its ultimate result being conflict and war. ("His scorn for what is poorer and weaker than himself is only surpassed by his ignorance of what is higher.")
This brief but insightful passage makes me want to read more by Santayana, a person I knew only by his reputation as an influential but not top-tier philosopher of the early 20th century. Thank you for introducing me to him!