A Review of the Importance of Criticism Through Different Approaches

Qurratul Ain Sardar; Shabana M. Anwar; Anam Aqil khan

doi:10.33152/jmphss-5.6.2

Qurratul Ain Sardar Government College University Hyderabad, Hyderabad, Pakistan
Shabana M. Anwar Sardar Bahadur Khan Women's University, Quetta, Pakistan
Anam Aqil khan Sardar Bahadur Khan Women's University

DOI: https://doi.org/10.33152/jmphss-5.6.2

Keywords: Criticism, Empiricism, Aesthetics, Imagination, Senses, Experience, Sublime

Abstract

This paper aims to discuss thoroughly different approaches to criticism with the help of pre-romantic aesthetics and their theories. The study, first, alludes to the 18th century pre-romantic aesthetics. Furthermore, the philosophical impact of Locke has been assessed in the light of the imagination theories. The theories of imagination given by Bruke and Addison have a lot of connection to aesthetics, which constitute part of imagination. Through a peculiar process, pleasure moves to be part of perception. Finding affirms that Locke’s philosophy relates to human compliance by means of which pre-romantic uses essential contextual treatises. The study adopts an analytical inquiry to accumulate data and then constructs a critical evaluation of factuality and erudition on the information. The findings of this research affirm that the emergence of knowledge has been debated for many centuries. Several literary epochs with a distinguished school of thought discuss and form inquiries. If rationalists portray human thoughts associated with the soul and cognitive views that a soul possesses from its inception, comparatively, Empiricists seem to have an approach that erupts from the perception and experiences as perception embarks on a journey to the blank paper of mind. If the reflection is there, it activates creating ideas, then this empiricism is directed to internality. Critics (Bruke & Addison) may be considered empiricists critics of the pre-romantic era.

References

Abrams, M. H. (1953). The Mirror and the Lamp. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Addison, J. (1712). Pleasures of imaginations. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/3M8RE5j.

Burke, E. (1757). The sublime and beautiful. Glasgow, Scotland: Good Press.

Burke, E. (1757). A philosophical enquiry into the origin of our ideas of the sublime and beautiful. London, UK; Pall-Mall.

Capoferro, R. (2010). Empirical wonder: Historicizing the fantastic, 1660-1760. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.

Hume, D. (1978). Treatise of human nature. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Locke, J. (1847). An essay concerning human understanding. Philadelphia, PA: Kay & Troutman.

Noyes, J., & Lewin, S. (2011). Supplemental guidance on selecting a method of qualitative evidence synthesis, and integrating qualitative evidence with Cochrane intervention reviews. In Supplementary guidance for inclusion of qualitative research in Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions.

Richards, I. A. (1929). Practical criticism. London, UK: Routledge.

Thilly, F. (1951). A history of philosophy. New York, NY: Henry Holt & Co.

Taylor, I. A. (1959). The nature of the creative process. In Creativity: An examination of the creative process. Paul Smith, NY: Hastings House.

Landow, G. P. (2021). Professor of English and the history of art. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/3BWjtt0.

Zipfel, F. (2020). The pleasures of imagination. Aspects of fictionality in the poetics of the age of enlightenment and in present-day theories of fiction. Journal of Literary Theory, 14(2), 260-286. https://doi.org/10.1515/jlt-2020-2007