Fontenelle'solution To The Paradox Of Tragedy

He first mentions a idea by Jean-Baptiste Dubos which is that any stimulation will be pleasurable compared with a complete absence of mental stimulation. Which in simple terms means anything feels better than nothing at all. Hume mentions that if the distressing stimulation were real life as opposed to fictional it would not be received as pleasure, so Dubos' solution to the paradox of tragedy fails. Hume then mentions another idea by French author Fontenelle. Fontenelle’s solutions consists of the idea that pleasure and pain come from the same source, tickling as an example when pushed is first onset as pleasure but if pushed far enough can induce pain. Hume acknowledges that the argument holds some weight but he rejects it. Hume questions if being a spectator of the portrayal of suffering provides the reduction that Fontenelle suggests that could convert …show more content…
If we plug this solution to the paradox in real life it fails because it doesn’t address the issue of witnessing real life suffering which would not bring about pleasure like fictional works do. Hume suggests a solution to the paradox which consists of a process in which negative emotions are converted into positive pleasurable ones when he says “By this means, the uneasiness of melancholy passions is not only overpowered and effaced by something stronger of an opposite kind; but the whole impulse of those passions is converted” (45) In The Pleasures of Tragedy by Susan Feagin she provides an alternative solution that addresses the pleasure response induced by tragedy. She dismisses Hume’s argument because he fails to explain the process, she says “ We are merely exchanging one puzzle for another” ( Citation needed). Instead Feagin’s solution consists of an idea of both direct and meta