April 15, 2004
A BEAUTY WAY TO GO:
Beauty? The question is what, how, and where (Carlin Romano, Apr. 06, 2004, Philadelphia Inquirer)
Does beauty inhabit everyday objects such as couches and hairdos, or only nature and high art?Can we learn cognitive truths from great literature such as Tolstoy's The Death of Ivan Ilych, a novella that suggests, "Life boils down to a few people loving you"?
Must a rock song possess a backbeat, electric instruments and simple harmonic structure to be an authentic rock song?
And, hey - does art make assertions?
If questions like those could be overheard at the Independence Park Hotel this weekend - mixed in with the usual, "Which way to Ben Franklin's house?" - who could possibly be parked in the charming Chestnut Street inn but the American Society for Aesthetics, back for its annual spring meeting?
Given that we can never know anything of the world for certain and that all is faith, we confront the reality that what we choose to believe may ultimately be just a function of aesthetics. What you believe of the world may simply be a reflection of who you are and your idea of beauty. You can, for instance, choose to believe in a world where morality and human dignity has been handed down to us by God or to believe in one where all actions are permissible because all is Natural. The choice can be seen as purely aesthetic, thereby revealing all about the believer.
MORE:
Believing Is Seeing (Romano Guardini, Jesus Christus: Meditations)
Thomas declared, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it." John 20:25Posted by Orrin Judd at April 15, 2004 8:39 AMThomas appears to have been a realist - reserved, cool, perhaps a little obstinate.
The days went by, and the disciples went on living under this considerable tension.
Another week, and they were together again in the house, and this time Thomas was with them. The same thing repeated itself. Jesus passed through closed doors, stepped into their midst, and spoke: "Peace be upon you!" Then he called the man who was struggling against faith: "Let me have thy finger; see, here are my hands. Let me have thy hand; put it into my side. Cease thy doubting, and believe!" At this point Thomas was overwhelmed. The truth of it all came home to him: this man standing before him, so moving, arousing such deep feelings within him, this man so full of mystery, so different from all other men - He is the very same One they used to be together with, who was put to death a short time ago. And Thomas surrendered: "Thou art my Lord and my God!" Thomas believed.
Then we come upon the strange words: "And Jesus said to him, 'Thou hast learned to believe, Thomas, because thou hast seen me. Blessed are those who have not seen, and yet have learned to believe!'"
Such words as these are really extraordinary! Thomas believed because he saw. But our Lord did not call him blessed. He had been allowed to "see," to see the hands and the side, and to touch the blessed wounds, yet he was not blessed!
Perhaps Thomas had a narrow escape from a great danger. He wanted proofs, wanted to see and touch; but then, too, it might have been rebellion deep within him, the vainglory of an intelligence that would not surrender, a sluggishness and coldness of heart. He got what he asked for: a look and a touch. But it must have been a concession he deplored having received, when he thought on it afterwards. He could have believed and been saved, not because he got what he demanded; he could have believed because God's mercy had touched his heart and given him the grace of interior vision, the gift of the opening of the heart, and of its surrender. [...]
Blessed indeed are "those who have not seen, and yet have learned to believe!" Those who ask for no miracles, demand nothing out of the ordinary, but who find God's message in everyday life. Those who require no compelling proofs, but who know that everything coming from God must remain in a certain ultimate suspense, so that faith may never cease to require daring. Those who know that the heart is not overcome by faith, that there is no force or violence there, compelling belief by rigid certitudes. What comes from God touches gently, comes quietly; does not disturb freedom; leads to quiet, profound, peaceful resolve within the heart.
"You can..choose to believe in a world where morality and human dignity has been handed down to us by God or to believe in one where all actions are permissible because all is Natural."
Why can't I belive that 'all is Natural', but that some things are not permissable?
Posted by: Brit at April 15, 2004 9:20 AMBecause it is internally inconsistent.
Posted by: oj at April 15, 2004 9:26 AMThat's just your faith in reason, old bean.
Posted by: Brit at April 15, 2004 9:28 AMYes, you can't both believe that true beauty lies in reason and that the unreasonable is more beautiful. Choose or lose.
Posted by: oj at April 15, 2004 9:37 AMPeople can believe three contradictory things before breakfast.
Posted by: David Cohen at April 15, 2004 9:38 AM"You can't both believe that true beauty lies in reason and that the unreasonable is more beautiful. Choose or lose."
Riddle-me-ree...
Posted by: Brit at April 15, 2004 9:40 AMYes, but you and I believe that there can be no such thing. Either way, we win.
Posted by: David Cohen at April 15, 2004 9:50 AMYes, stick that one in yer file...
Posted by: Brit at April 15, 2004 10:25 AMUnfortunately for the "all is aesthetic" viewpoint, people will still interact with an objective, physical reality which will (in a sense) "judge" their beliefs. For instance, societies that come to believe that children are unaesthetic will cease to exist.
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at April 15, 2004 11:18 AMaog:
Whicvh just proves their judgement of what is beautiful to be wrong.
Posted by: oj at April 15, 2004 1:03 PMAOG is quite right: Truth is a woman who wields a baseball bat called "Reality", and they who scorn or ignore her risk a braining therewith...
Aesthetics and beauty have as little to do with reality as the beauty of the female guards of the bad guy in a James Bond Film has to do with their morality. In fact, I could argue that evolution would have selected individuals who were emotionally attracted to hard reality over those who found reality ugly, repellent, hardhearted, uncompassionate, etc., etc., etc... (if you drew the implication that I find most moonbat leftists and socialists contitutionally incapable of survival, then congratulations, you inferred correctly.)
The unusual correspondence between the field of mathematics and its usefulness in explaining physical phenomena is a more fruitful avenue for arguing the existence of the divine spark than aesthetics, since one would not expect evolution to select individuals and traits favoring the ability to grok tensors and quaternions. This has caused mathematicians all kinds of grief in their search for a "pure" branch of mathematics so abstract and elegant that it has utterly no useful purpose. I believe it was Hilbert who, upon being informed that his work in a highly abstract area was proving useful in explaining certain phenomena in high energy physics, muttered "Damn!"
Posted by: Ptah at April 15, 2004 3:50 PMThe argument is not between beauty and reason but whether beauty is purely conventional or Platonic.
Different people give different answers about that before they get to God and Reason.
The mathematically inclined, at Ptah says, are inclined to be Platonists. The materialists, looking around, are inclined the other way.
Some people would look forward to a meal of scorched witchetty grubs, some wouldn't.
But the existence or non-existence of god has nothing to do with that.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at April 15, 2004 4:36 PMIf so, we would all agree about what is beautiful, and we all don't.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at April 15, 2004 9:41 PM"can, for instance, choose to believe in a world where morality and human dignity has been handed down to us by God or to believe in one where all actions are permissible because all is Natural."
A perfect example of a false dichotomy.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at April 15, 2004 9:45 PMJeff:
OJ likes false dichotomies. He finds them beautiful.
I think his comments in this thread might have come to him in a dream. (Spent too long inhaling the smoke from his sweaters?...)
Posted by: Brit at April 16, 2004 6:04 AM550 years and counting and still no one's found a rational ground for morality. You can have morality or naturalism, not both.
Posted by: oj at April 16, 2004 7:22 AMSure you can. Capitalism is a perfect example of a self-ordering system that produces morality out of self-interest.
We are social animals. In order to get along, we have to go along.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at April 16, 2004 7:53 AMSelf-ordering? Where did it ever arise on its own?
Posted by: oj at April 16, 2004 7:59 AMWhy what? Why don't we all agree on what's beautiful?
Following your argument, it'd be because there isn't any god.
While I believe that's true, our disagreements about beauty don't demonstrate it.
Appreciation of beauty is cultural. I, for example, do not find Orthodix icons beautiful, but some do.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at April 16, 2004 2:45 PMUnanimity is not a requirement of truth. Is Darwinism wrong because less than a third of Americans believe in it?
Posted by: oj at April 16, 2004 2:53 PMOJ:
Self order and origin are two entirely different things.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at April 16, 2004 8:14 PMMy point exactly.
However, your point seems to require unanimity.
There are forms of religious art that I do find beautiful, but that doesn't make me believe them true.
I picture you in a velvet coat with a flowing satin cravat, exclaiming that truth is beauty, beauty truth, that is all we know and all we need to know.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at April 16, 2004 9:00 PMJeff:
Yes, things have origins and nothing is self-ordering.
Posted by: oj at April 16, 2004 9:05 PMHarry:
Why? There's no reason everyone wpould recognize beauty any more than everyone recognizes truth or right and wrong.
Posted by: oj at April 16, 2004 9:06 PMOJ:
Wrong on the facts. Lots of things are self-ordering, all the way from certain chemical mixtures, to bacteria colonies, to economies.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at April 17, 2004 5:32 PMDon't forget languages.
Posted by: oj at April 17, 2004 8:24 PMYes, languages, too.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at April 17, 2004 11:06 PM