would have been <instinctive> in critically observing Yeobright

chong lee

Senior Member
türkçe
Hi,
The quote is from The Return of the Native, by Thomas Hardy.
The Return of the Native, by Thomas Hardy

What does it mean "instictive" here ? I know the word. I did not get the point.
Thanks.


He already showed that thought is a disease of flesh, and indirectly bore evidence that ideal physical beauty is incompatible with emotional development and a full recognition of the coil of things. Mental luminousness must be fed with the oil of life, even though there is already a physical need for it; and the pitiful sight of two demands on one supply was just showing itself here.

When standing before certain men the philosopher regrets that thinkers are but perishable tissue, the artist that perishable tissue has to think. Thus to deplore, each from his point of view, the mutually destructive interdependence of spirit and flesh would have been instinctive with these in critically observing Yeobright.
 
  • Truffula

    Senior Member
    English - USA
    In this case, "instinctive" is being used to mean that this reaction of deploring the necessity for spirit and flesh to be interdependent would occur naturally - be the default reaction and, in that defaultness & naturalness, be like an instinct - in both the philosopher and the artist.
     

    chong lee

    Senior Member
    türkçe
    Sorry but still there are many unclear points for me.
    • What are these two "two demands"?
    • I did not get the " even though there is already a physical need for it".
    • Why do artist and philosopher deplore?
     

    Truffula

    Senior Member
    English - USA
    Those additional questions really need their own threads, and the answers are in the first paragraph quoted in your original post here.

    Or maybe this will answer (follow up in private message):

    The two demands (on the "oil of life" ) stated in this passage are: 1, mental luminousness (also called, emotional development and a full recognition of the coil of things), and 2, the maintenance of ideal physical beauty. The artist deplores the necessity for beauty to be sapped by thought; the philosopher deplores the necessity for thought to be reduced to maintain beauty.

    So what he is saying is, in simpler language, something like this.

    If someone thinks too hard they become less pretty. If someone does not think, their mind will rot. It's a shame that people need to both maintain beautiful looks and actually use their brains. Philosophers want them to just use all their energy to think, and find it regrettable that they have to use some energy to stay physically fit at all. Artists want people to spend all their energy looking good and being in good shape, and don't want them to spoil their looks with a single deep thought.
     
    Last edited:

    WildWest

    Senior Member
    Turkish
    Hi. I was listening to an episode of Ted Radio Hour called "How We Love" and came upon the sentence given below in its short summary.

    "Love is instinctive and essential, but what is it that brings certain people together?"

    My question is, can we use "instinctual" instead? If not, why?
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top