Traditional Western philosophy has proposed three objectives: the Good, the True and the Beautiful.
In the modern world, it has been noted by a number of commentators that we have emphasised the True at the expense of the other two. Science acknowledges only the standard of truth - speak to a scientist and ask whether he would allow ethical or aesthetic considerations to intrude on his experiments. Ethics are of course used to regulate science, but these are established from outside - by government, for example. Aesthetics are the realm of artists, and are even less important to the scientist, at least while he is being a scientist.
It should also be noted, however, that there is a secondary aspect to our tradition, which we derive from the Romantic era, that emphasises beauty and also truth. Keats' Ode on a Grecian Urn makes the classic statement:
'Beauty is truth, truth beauty,—that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.'
The first problem with this is that it leaves out the Good - the moral or ethical. The second is that in practice beauty is well on top in the Romantic spirit. It is the personal response that matters - ie 'feelings' - and so we lose sight of Truth that may not accord with our personal feelings. In extreme cases, all that matters is what I feel; if you feel something different then you must be wrong, because the Beauty I experience is Truth. This is why art is greatly fragmented - standards are determined independently by the aesthetic responses of each artist or by each viewer of art, and not by reference to something outside of the individual.
What we seem to leave out, then, is the Good. Our society has things that it values as absolute ethical standards - universal equality, compassion, tolerance, charity, etc - but where do these standards come from? What inspires us? The answer still seems to be religion. Despite all that has happened over the past couple of centuries, we still do not have the Atheist Cross or the Secular Army rushing out to help people in need when disaster strikes.
This is why we need philosophy - some means to find inspiration that is not tied to faith - and yet we should also ask ourselves whether the School is not as culpable as anyone else in our neglect of the Good. We have upheld the True, and the Beautiful (not so much in our art, but in our emphasis on meditation, the exercise and similar practices that create an aesthetic or devotional experience) but have we done as much for the Good? We uphold principles and ethical standards, but how far? How real is our Good? Do we do good in society, or only in School?
Leaving aside issues such as charitable work, we might also ask whether kindness and compassion have not been neglected, in our efforts to exalt Truth. The Good is not in conflict with Truth, or with Beauty. We have perhaps more to discover about the harmony of all three.
Thursday, September 14, 2006
The Good, The True and the Beautiful
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
A codicil rather than full comment - William Morris, the 19th writer, artist and social thinker, said that we should have nothing in our home that we do not believe to be beautiful or know to be useful.
I've found this to be so helpful when making domestic decisions - especially when weeding out clutter.
The use of the words 'believe' in connection with beauty, and 'know' with useful, is significant.
Interesting timing for this post in view of the furore surrounding the Pope's speech yesterday.
It's worth reading what the Pope actually said, rather than what the papers say he said. (There is a link to the speech on the bbc news website.)
What is interesting is that the Pope argues for a new conception of rationality as including the divine, not excluding it. Perhaps this is an answer to the feeling that we have been considering Truth without paying adequate attention to the Good.
Apologies for the lengthy quote following:
"And so I come to my conclusion. This attempt, painted with broad strokes, at a critique of modern reason from within has nothing to do with putting the clock back to the time before the Enlightenment and rejecting the insights of the modern age. The positive aspects of modernity are to be acknowledged unreservedly: we are all grateful for the marvellous possibilities that it has opened up for mankind and for the progress in humanity that has been granted to us. The scientific ethos, moreover, is ... the will to be obedient to the truth, and, as such, it embodies an attitude which belongs to the essential decisions of the Christian spirit. The intention here is not one of retrenchment or negative criticism, but of broadening our concept of reason and its application. While we rejoice in the new possibilities open to humanity, we also see the dangers arising from these possibilities and we must ask ourselves how we can overcome them. We will succeed in doing so only if reason and faith come together in a new way, if we overcome the self-imposed limitation of reason to the empirically verifiable, and if we once more disclose its vast horizons."
I have to agree with the sentiments of Il Papa.
However I would like to read what he has written to see whether the context justified it - I have read the bit that is raising Muslim hackles, and it was not complementary in the least.
There is an idea that is gaining credence at the moment, which is that the Muslim world is "pre-Enlightenment", whereas the Western world is "post-Enlightenment". So far as I can see this is just a way of the West saying "We good; they bad".
The prejudices that the Islamic world presently suffers from are the same that afflict religion in general - that is, its beliefs, its faith and its reasoning are irrelevant to the concerns of the modern world. This is the very point the Pope tackles in his speech. His aim is to defend religion from the charge of being inherently anti-rational.
It's only 7 pages and worth a read:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/15_09_06_pope.pdf
It therefore seems to me that the Pope could have used this speech as an opportunity to extend a hand of friendship to Islam. Instead of this, he has tried to unite Christianity with the Greek tradition, and therefore with science and modernity, by distancing it from the supposedly anti-rational Islam.
Having once spent a few weeks reading Islamic philosophy and theology, I think that the Pope is unjustly caricaturing Islam, through his quotation of a medieval Emperor, rather than taking a broad view of its traditions. It is true that there are strong anti-rational elements in Islam, but the same is true (as indeed the Pope acknowledges) of Christianity.
What the Pope is trying to argue is that Christianity has always been united in its essence with reason. However, to quote the philosopher Charles Taylor (a committed Christian) on the history of Christianity:
There were recurrent revolts by Christian thinkers against some or other aspect of Greek philosophy, and from time to time the thesis would be pressed that reason by itself could ... be the servant of the devil ... [Martin] Luther speaks graphically of reason as "that whore".
So although the Pope's thesis emphasises the best aspect of Christianity (from the point of view of philosophy), and is to be applauded for that, I do not think that it was wise, or just, for him to do so by attacking Islam.
He has subsequently stated that the words of the Emperor are not his own, but since his whole argument uses Islam as an example of unreasonable religion, his own view is clear.
'The idea that they're all just three aspects of an ultimate unity, is quite stimulating.'
This reminds me that the School, the Study Society and the School of Meditation recently spent a weekend together at Waterperry.
This could not have happened in the past. It's a good move towards acknowledging their unity of purpose.
I think Vamana is right to say that we're all hazy about one or other. I remember tutoring the gunas for the first time and having a student who said she recognised sattva and tamas, but not rajas. I said that she should look at rajas.
She and her flatmate used to get up and run around the house in the morning shouting "rajas rajas rajas!" Then at the end of the term she said she wasn't sure she could do part 2, "I've got my gym to go to; then there's the yoga class; and salsa ... philosophy has stimulated me to do so much!" I said, "OK, I think you know about rajas now".
Post a Comment