No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
It has been explained how science, with the freedom which makes it an art, uses ideas of its own construction, and that they are verified by nature shows them to be, directly or indirectly, at differing degrees of remoteness, congenial to and so far inherent in the material which is the subject-matter of the science. Take, for an instance, velocity. It is expressed by the ratio of two integers which measure distance and time respectively. Now a ratio is a construction of the mind, and it does not exist in external things in the sense in which universals must be said to belong to them and have in one way or another been held to belong to them since the time of Socrates, or at least Plato. Even if we agree that the integers themselves are given to mind and not created by mind, their ratio implies the intervention of mind, and does not inhere in the integers themselves. But though velocity does not inhere in things, it corresponds to and stands for something which is found alike in all moving things and varies in the moving tram and the sea-plane in a Schneider race.
page 518 note 1 See before, I, pp. 344 ff. (this volume, July number).
page 521 note 1 I state the matter more explicitly elsewhere (Hibberl Journal, July 1930, and Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, forthcoming volume, 1929–30, Art. IX), by saying that the artist translates (or tranfers) the form of his subject-matter from that material into his own material. The form is identical in the two different materials, so far as such identity is possible, Only it will be observed that the form of the subject-matter is not the form of that material (e.g. the subject of a portrait) as it exists apart from the artist's treatment of it, but of that subject as the artist conceives it in the course of his work upon it.
page 526 note 1 This refers to an article in Mind, xxxviii. No. 150, 04 1929, by MrRainer, A. C. A.. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
page 526 note 2 E.g., succession belongs intrinsically to father and son, and a place is intrinsically between other places; but a K.C.B. has no intrinsic precedence over a K.B.E.: that is an order of institution.
page 529 note 1 See on this subject Art and Instinct. Herbert Spencer Lecture.Oxford, 1927.Google Scholar
page 531 note 1 Art and Instinct. Herbert Spencer Lecture. Oxford, 1927.Google Scholar
page 531 note 2 Art and the Material. Adamson Lecture. Manchester, 1925Google Scholar. And British Journal of Psychology, vol. xvii, Part 4, 1927, “The Creative Process in the Artist's Mind.”Google Scholar
page 531 note 3 Art and Nature (from Rylands Bulletin). Manchester, 1927Google Scholar.
page 532 note 1 See Hibbert Journal, July 1930, “Truth, Goodness and Beauty.”