Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-cbk24 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T09:49:09.139Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Science and Art (II)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 February 2009

S. Alexander
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

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.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Philosophy , Volume 5 , Issue 20 , October 1930, pp. 516 - 532
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Philosophy 1930

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

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.”