Criticism of David Hume's view on the origin of tragic pleasure

What is striking about tragedy for Hume is the paradoxical nature of 'tragic pleasure'. Hume asks why we enjoy watching tragedy - a show full of pain and suffering? From Hume's point of view, this pleasure is not rational. Hume tries to explain this paradox in his essay about tragedy through the theory of "conversion". According to this theory, what we call the impression of tragic pain is overcome by a stronger impression called aesthetic pleasure. As a result, what is initially terrifying and painful becomes a source of pleasure through the aesthetic expression. Therefore, Hume's view of tragedy and the solution he offers to justify the paradoxical nature of tragedy are influenced by his subjective and psychological approach to the concept of taste and beauty. Hume believes that every horrible and painful thing can turn into a source of pleasure through an aesthetic expression. In this article, while describing Hume's theory, we will show that what is called “tragic pleasure” cannot be reduced to the theory of "conversion". Because according to Hume's own view, a stronger impression cannot be defeated by a weaker impression. Hume's idea reduces tragedy to its "idiosyncratic" values (artistic expression). Our hypothesis is that far deeper elements are involved in making tragic pleasure. Emphasizing the views of other philosophers such as Aristotle and Nietzsche, we will show that the tragic pleasure can be the result of a kind of tragic recognition (Anagnorisis) and catharsis. In other words, our hypothesis is that the transformation of suffering into pleasure in tragedy is not a purely psychological category, but first of all an epistemological matter. Also, the example of tragedy shows that the beautiful - as Hume and later Kant thought - cannot be reduced to the taste judgment. Because then, as a rule, we shouldn't enjoy tragedy.