Principles of literary criticismRichards, I. A. (Ivor Armstrong)
Philosophy
Principles of literary criticism
Richards, I. A. (Ivor Armstrong)
Criticism
No individual can live one minute without a very intricate and,
so far as it goes, very perfect co-ordination of impulses. It
is only when we pass from the activities which from second to
second maintain life to those which from hour to hour determine
what kind of life it shall be, that we find wide differences.
Fortunately for psychology we can each find wide enough differences
in ourselves from hour to hour. Most people in the same day are
Bonaparte and Oblomov by turns. Before breakfast Diogenes, after
dinner Petronius or Bishop Usher. But throughout these mutations
certain dispositions usually remain much the same, those which
govern public behaviour in a limited number of affairs varying
very greatly from one society or civilisation to another. Every
systematisation in the degree to which it is stable involves
a degree of sacrifice, but for some the price to be paid in opportunities
foregone is greater than for others. By the extent of the loss,
the range of impulses thwarted or starved, and their degree of
importance, the merit of a systematisation is judged. That organisation
which is least wasteful of human possibilities is, in short,
the best. Some individuals, hag-ridden by their vices, or their
virtues, to a point at which the law of diminishing returns has
deprived even these of their appropriate satisfactions, are still
unable to reorganise; they go through life incapacitated for
most of its possible enjoyments.[23] Others, paralysed with their
conflicts, are unable to do anything freely; whatever they attempt
some implicated but baffled impulse is still fitfully and fretfully
stirring. The debauchee and the victim of conscience alike have
achieved organisations whose price in sacrifice is excessive.
Both their individual satisfactions, and those for which they
are dependent upon sympathetic relations with their fellows,
an almost equal group, are unduly restricted. Upon grounds of
prudence alone they have been injudicious, and they may be condemned
without any appeal to peculiarly ‘ethical’ standards. The muddle
in which they are forced to live is itself sufficient ground
for reprobation.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account