"the laws of beauty."
“man is built according to the laws of beauty”, an important proposition in marx's aesthetic thinking. But what's the "pretty pattern"? It's almost an attractive but difficult puzzle. Marx himself has not made this clear. Our aesthetic community has been discussing this many times, but it has always been mixed and unconscionable. In recent days, the author has read "marx's objectivity on the "mature of beauty" " , written by professor tsinglin, which he claims corrects the misreading and misperception of two scales in our aesthetic world and of the "mature of beauty" and finally gives "the answer that is in line with marx's original intent". And i have been in doubt while i was reading, and i have been blinded by misreading, misperception and indulging myself, and i have not been humbled, but i have sought the guidance of professor tseng lin and the scholar。
One, only one scale
In order to facilitate the discussion, allow me first to quote from marx's words about two scales and “the laws of beauty”:
Animals are built only by the scale and needs of the species to which they belong, while people know how to produce by the scale of any species and how to apply the internal scale everywhere to the object; thus, they are also built according to the “american pattern”. (p97)
The quotations refer explicitly to two scales, namely "scale of seed" and "inline scale". Professor zenglin, on the other hand, believed that it was literally a two-scale measure, and that it was only a measure in substance, and she wrote: “`species' are the scales of objects'. `inherent scale' is the measure inherent in the object's object. So, it doesn't matter, it's actually a scale." she added that it was merely a matter of literally making the expression “two scales”, which was “the imposition of `two scales' on marx”. This argument is confusing. Why would marx needlessly use two completely different concepts to express the same meaning and repeat it twice? In order to establish the truth of the matter, it is necessary to conduct a detailed and in-depth analysis and exploration of both scales。
The scale is a philosophical concept borrowed from metrology relationships. Hegel explained the concept as follows: “the scale is the unity of quality and quantity, and thus is also set at the same time.” this means that the measure is the qualitative norm of a thing and that it is the norm and the rule of the thing, so that “every human being has its own measure, beyond which it can sink and destroy.” (p402-403) for example, under normal air pressure and temperature, water is liquid, evaporated into steam when temperatures exceed 100 degrees celsius, and the water collides into ice when temperatures fall below zero degrees celsius. I think max uses the concept of scale in that sense. In comparing human and animal production, marx proposed two measures to distinguish the two types of production. “species of species” refers to the nature and standard that makes a thing a thing. This scale is common to animal and human production. But even at this scale there are differences between humans and animals, and animals are built only by the scale and needs of the species to which they belong, and people know that they are produced by the scale of any species, so that animal production is one-sided and human production is comprehensive, such as beavers that build embankments, bees that build nests, spiders know only the web, and humans are all-powerful。
The “inherent scale” is highly controversial and divergent. Mr. Rue merlyn's understanding, starting with semantic analysis, that “this `inherent measure' does not refer to the human measure, but rather to the `subject' itself, is based on the translation of russian and english, as well as on the opinions of some foreign scholars. Mr. Rudd merlyn's arguments are consistent. Mr. Rue merlyn is a respected elder and scholar, and i admire his intellectual thought. However, i think that his semantic analysis here is still deficient. First, the semantic analysis should focus on the original version of marx, a focus that has been left lightly; secondly, as for the views of english and russian translations and foreign scholars, they are not simply an understanding of marx's idea, which is consistent with the original intent and needs to be tested. Therefore, they are of value only as reference, not as evidence, to our quest for the truth of the “inherent scale”. I think one thing is certain: the application of “inherent scales” is a characteristic of human production. Then i think it should be possible to find clues, evidence and evidence from marx's discussion of labour to solve the “inherent scale”。
Then let's turn our attention to max's perspective on labour. According to marx, “the simple and essential elements of labour are the purposeful activity and target of labour, the data of labour, i. E. Human beings and things.” (p202) the purpose of labour is to “posses nature for human needs” (p209). The purpose of this work, which was defined as an “inline image” prior to production, became the “inherent motive for production” and the “inherent object” (p29-30). It is clear (emphasis added) that the purpose of labour is an essential element of labour and that labour without purpose is inconceivable. Thus, the purpose of labour is a very important measure of labour, which is unique to human production, which does not exist in animal production. Speaking here, it is clear that there are indeed two scales of human production, which max has pointed out to be true. Since the purpose of production is based on human needs, the “scale of seed” is determined by the nature of the thing, and it is reasonable and understandable to stand in the producer's position to view one of these two scales as “inherent”, personal, and the other as external, material. So i thought it was accurate to translate "das inharente mab" into "inherent scale", which was not appropriate。
In the economics manuscript of 1857-1858, marx also spoke quite clearly of two scales of labour, which he wrote: “it is true that the scale of labour is provided here outside, by the obstacles that must be met and that must be overcome by labour for that purpose.” (p112) “the purpose to be achieved” is based on human needs, that is, the “inherent scale” and that “the obstacles that must be overcome by labour to achieve this end” are determined by the nature of the subject, that is, the “scale of seed”. Why is the goal that must be achieved, that is, the “inherent scale”, also “offside”? This is because marx speaks here of slave labour, forced labour and, in one word, “absorption work outside”, in which the purpose of the work is, of course, not by the worker himself, but by his masters and employers, so it is “provided outside”. If, apart from the identity of the person proposing the purpose of labour, the purpose of labour is ultimately formulated by human beings in accordance with their own needs, and is thus a “human measure” and “inherent measure”. An ancient greek philosopher, protegola, said a famous phrase: “the human being is the measure of everything”. (p54) it would be most appropriate to use this term in human production, where people change nature and take possession of it according to their own needs, the “inherent scale”。
In conclusion, there are two basic elements of human labour, namely, the purposeful activities of the human person and labour information, in short, human beings and goods. Two basic elements of labour determine the two measures on which it must be based, namely, the purpose to be served and the need to change the form of the natural object for that purpose, and therefore the obstacles that must be overcome, in short, the measure of the human being and the measure of the object. It follows from this that the two-scale formulation is both in marx and in full conformity with the marx system of thinking. It is groundless to say that it was imposed on marx。
What is the “american pattern”
According to professor ultimate, “the `pretty pattern' that marx means the perfect unity of nature and expression within the object with aesthetic properties”. Her opinion is based on two judgments: first, that there is only one measure of labour, namely, the “scale of species”, which implies “the unity of nature and expression within the object's client”; and secondly, that “the measure, that is, the rule”. So she directs the "mature of beauty" quoted above from the meaning of the scale. I thought that neither of these judgments was true, so her interpretation of “the laws of beauty” lacked a reliable basis, as did the building on the beach. There is no need to dwell on the first judgement, which we have identified before. Now let's see whether the second judgment is true or not. After talking about the characteristics of human labour, and after speaking about the two scales of labour, marx drew up the proposition that “people are also built according to the laws of beauty” with the synonym “thus” for causality. Thus, “the laws of beauty” are closely related to human work, which is the basis of “the laws of beauty” but not the conclusion that they are “the laws of beauty” and that “the laws of beauty” are reduced to a single measure, the “scale of species”, which is far from the truth。
Since the “mature of beauty” is based on human labour and on two scales of labour, it may be reasonable to look at the meaning of “mature of beauty” in terms of understanding the nature and characteristics of labour. Marx looks at labour from three different perspectives and points to its three dimensions: first, the meaning of economics, “labour is the eternal natural condition for human survival” (p57); secondly, the meaning of sociology, which is “the basic condition of all history” (p32), is the “real foundation” of history (p44); and thirdly, the meaning of philosophy and humanism, which is “the proof of the performance of human life” (p21), and the realization of human “natural endowments and spiritual ends” (p28). Work in the economic sense is aimed at producing and obtaining the necessary means of subsistence, while work in the human sense is characterized by the expression and exercise of the essence of the human being. Marx refers to the former as “work to earn a living” (p28), which can be described as work to live with. People are engaged in subsistence work for the sole purpose of survival and for the purpose of merit, as marx pointed out: “people ... Produce only for possession. Production is for possession. Not only does production have such a utilitarian purpose, but it also has a selfish purpose; a human being produces only for his own possession; he produces objects that are the object of his direct, selfish needs. (p33) a human person works for self-expression, self-realization, and thus enjoyment and pleasure. Max wrote: “i have developed my personality and my personality in my production, so i have enjoyed personal performance in my activities, but also personal pleasure in the visualization of my product, in recognition of my personality as a matter of substance, as an intuitive sense of power, and therefore beyond any doubt.” (p. 37) in the work of pleasure, the relationship between human beings and objects goes beyond merit, as marx has described: “the need and enjoyment of the self-serving nature of my own, and nature has lost its pure usefulness.” (p124-125) in marx’s view, it is in the human sense that the work that occurs with meguana. Let us give examples. If we need a water-rich vessel, the construction of a simple, cylindrical pot of pottery will be a success for our livelihood. But the work of the carnival is by no means to satisfy it by making pots of pottery attractive images such as pigs and birds. The work of earning a living is based on the practicality of the product, while the work of having a living brings pride and pleasure from the intuitiveness of the product to the nature of the human force — the skill of the mind. While the products of subsistence labour also embody the essence of human power, the light of the essence of human power in the products of subsistence labour is overshadowed by a thick cloud of practicality, because the criteria for earning a living are practical. The work of the carnival, on the other hand, is based on the principle of the self-fulfilment of the human being, so that the product of the work of the caribou is manufactured specifically for the purpose of emitting the light of the human essence。
Marx said that the work that underlies “the laws of beauty” is considered to be the work of pleasure, because before talking about two scales and “the laws of beauty” there was a comparison of animal production and human production, and max here emphasized the non-profit, non-profit nature of human labour, which he wrote: “an animal produces only under the control of its immediate physical needs, while a person produces even under the control of its physical needs, and only if it is not under the control of such needs.” “an animal's products are directly linked to its flesh, while human beings are free to treat their own products.” (p. 97) it is this kind of work that is entitled to be the basis of the “pretty pattern”。
In his 1857 aesthetic notes, max spoke about the meaning of aesthetics, saying: “the inner meaning of aesthetics is to study (in the sense) certain provisions so that the object can be beautifully reproduced.” (p. 37) is useful for understanding what is “the law of beauty.” is it not true that certain provisions, which allow the subject to recover beauty, are the specifics of “american law”
Having analysed the content of the two scales and determined the nature of the work that underlies the “american law”, the provisions contained in the “american law” should be reasonably deduced. I thought that “the laws of beauty” might have included the following provisions: first, the creation of beauty necessarily demonstrates the essence of the human being. Beautiful creation is based on the successful application of two scales, the successful application of “species” and the ability to understand the patterns of objective things; and the success of “inherent scales” shows the ability of people to modify nature and adapt it to their own needs in order to create second nature. So the essence of beauty is self-realization. Secondly, beauty creation and appreciation is an activity of extraordinary merit. Generally speaking, beauty is not created to create some kind of necessities of life, but rather to give expression to, and materialize, the essence of human power, and then to enjoy and enjoy it intuitively from objective objects that bring together the essence of human power. So, the beauty of creation and appreciation is essentially a human appreciation. If the thrust of the “american norm” is to be expressed in very concise terms, can it be said that the “american norm” is the self-realization of human beings — the pattern of self-approval。
Pan bishin (1939-) man, zhejiang xin chang county, professor, aesthetic studies, central music institute。
