William Hazlitt Essays

On the Pleasure of Hating encompasses 6 essays, the last of which bears the same title. I am led to believe that Hazlitt was an important radical of his time, and it seems like many of these essays would have been published in journals or newspapers.

The first piece details a boxing match - the difficulty to get there, the hype. What is most impressive about this short depiction is perhaps how well the reader is drawn into the excitement of the coming event.

The remaining essays could be considered little more than opinion pieces, lacking the theoretical or philosophical support to be perceived as anything else. Given this, a few I found interesting while others seemed to lack relevance.

The Indian Juggler begins by discussing the unrivalled talents of a juggler - but gradually leads to Hazlitt's contention: Men can't be great through dexterous feats, but rather through artistic pursuits (like writing).

His writing about the legitimacy of the Monarchy seemed a little redundant, especially given my location in time and space - however I guess there are some interesting points made.

Perhaps the most contemporary essay is that concerning reason and imagination. Although it does not purport specifically to do so, this essay provides the main basis for ethical arguments grounded in subjective reactions rather than in objectification and distance. i.e. Philosophers such as Singer hold that philosophical explorations in ethics should exist outside our human emotions and reactions, creating a hypothetical world in order to determine right or wrong. What this fails to do is acknowledge that ethics is very much tied to the society in which morality and choice are considered, and furthermore the emotional consequences to actions should be considered along with the objective consequences. For instance, Singer's example of a chimpanzee with more brain capacity than someone suffering severe retardation has more of a right to live - the problem with this argument is that it neglects the consideration of the following: the connections between the family and the severely disabled person, the instinctive recognition of the disabled person as a human - that is, we project our innate understanding of what it means to be human onto him, the responsibilities implicitly taken up by those close to the person.

(I am not anti-singer as such, I don't think he's a Nazi, I just don't agree with his take on ethics in this regard.)

It feels like Hazlitt is someone that it is a good idea to be aware of, although I'm not sure where I would use his arguments in academic writings etc - i.e. i'm not sure whether he's an authority on much. Perhaps he could be seen as indicative of the changing times?