Print

Print


  Whatever he said about the unreadability of his dissertation decades 
later, his philosophic studies and dissertation study of Bradley 
underpinned his highly informed use of these terms throughout his life. 
It is probably true, as he said, that he wrote some of his criticism out 
of the necessity of raising money, but it is highly doubtful, at best, 
that any of his formulations were "random."  Rather they were grounded 
in his studies. Criticism of them is much more frequent than it is as 
well grounded, if grounded at all.

  Regarding Rickard's observation about emotions and intellect below, 
TSE notes, again in the first few pages of his dissertation, that 
although we must focus on and discuss them separately, they never occur 
in isolation from one another; and in fact they are part of the same thing.

  KA

On 10/20/2013 6:06 PM, Ken Armstrong wrote:
> His dissertation begins with a focus on what feeling is for Bradey 
> (not feelings), both what it is and what it isn't. Emotions is one of 
> the things it isn't.
>
> Ken A
>
> On 10/20/2013 5:51 PM, P wrote:
>> T&TIT is sensitive to the difference between the two words.
>> P.
>>
>> "Rickard A. Parker" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> Thank you Tom for a terrific post.
>>>
>>> I had been confused about Eliot's usage of
>>> "emotions" and "feelings" in his essays. Maybe his
>>> audience was in tune with him from a standard
>>> usage at the time but I wasn't aware of a
>>> difference. I don't recall Eliot defining the
>>> terms either. I finally came up with something
>>> close to what you reported on with emotions being
>>> the ancient animal-like part and feelings being
>>> when the intellect got involved. As I remember
>>> though Eliot wasn't consistent with the usage and
>>> it appears to me that your author wasn't either.