The Saucepan Man wrote:
Quote:
|
But one could use the word "enjoyable" instead, which would refer to the object.
|
The only problem with "enjoyable" is that I still think I want to refer to a specific category of enjoyment - not sensual pleasure; I would not call eating candy the enjoyment of art. "Aesthetic" seemed to be a reasonable counterpart to "sensual" to me. At any rate, it seems pointless to go on about a definition that apparently only I am interested in.
Littlemanpoet wrote:
Quote:
|
I was recently listening to a tape on Tolkien, from Mars Hill, and an incidental remark came up that the words "amuse" and "muse" are related as opposites. "Muse" is a source of inspiration. "Amuse" is, literally, "no muse"; that is, not inspiration, but the displacement of inspiration.
|
One cannot transmute a linguistic argument into a broad sociological one, much less a metaphysical one. The derivation of the word "amuse" simply cannot prove anything about the relation of humor to art in a broader sense.
Edit: Also, that derivation of "amuse" is simply not correct, according to the OED.