Beauty
01/05/16 05:25
Philosophers often occupy their brains with obscure thoughts. Here’s an idea that has been bouncing around in the back of my mind for years.
They say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The actual origins of the quote go back to at least the third century BC, but a lot of people have had their own versions of the idea over the years. Ben Franklin wrote in Poor Richard’s Almanack in 1741: “Beauty, like supreme dominion is but supported by opinion.” Shakespeare wrote, “Beauty is bought by judgement of the eye.” The basic idea is that the perception of beauty is subjective.
Certainly there are a lot of different opinions about art and music and even personal items like clothing and appearance. Some things are attractive to some and not attractive to others.
There is a bit of a debate as to whether or not the perception of beauty is a uniquely human characteristic. Some argue that our ability to enjoy beauty is something that makes humans unique. Others argue that animals perceive beauty. They certainly are attracted to certain things and less attracted to other things. Animals “chose” mates, but it is not clear whether such is the product of cognitive reflection or simply a reaction to an instinct.
There are others who will argue that beauty is an entirely made up concept - that it is arbitrary and that there is nothing that is more or less beautiful than anything else. It is simply an arbitrary value assigned by human judgment.
It seems to me, however, that there may be an objective reality that is beauty. After all there is a kind of order to the universe. When things get out of balance, they tend to correct themselves without human intervention. The movement of stars and planets has a type of logic that makes them predictable to a keen observer. Modern scientific method is based on “laws” of nature.
I think that the idea of beauty as an objective reality began to stir in my consciousness back in my college days. I had a friend who was both a theologian and a mathematician. That particular combination of thought specializations is more common than one might think. Alfred North Whitehead is still revered for his contributions to both mathematics and philosophy. Whitehead wrote, “Art is the imposing of pattern on experience, and our aesthetic enjoyment is recognition of the pattern.”
At any rate, my friend was so delighted by the orderliness of a mathematical formula that there was a kind of euphoria that seized him when he solved a particularly difficult one. I was not particularly interested in calculus and other forms of higher math as a college student, but I couldn’t deny the joy that mathematical manipulations brought to my friend. As a philosophy and Christian thought major, I began to ask myself about whether or not there is something in the basic order of the universe that is by nature beautiful.
Another way to think about the issue is to recognize that there are some things that are nearly universally perceived as ugly. War is ugly. Those who are victims sense its ugliness. Those who fight will report that it is ugly. Those who commit nations to war will speak of it as a “necessary evil.” We humans are pretty consistent in our assessment that the muck and mayhem of killing people is not a pretty endeavor. Perhaps it would be easier for us to reach agreement that there are some things that are inherently ugly and that there is an objective reality that is the absence of beauty.
Except that we recognize beauty in the midst of the most horrific of circumstances. The famous orchestra in the main camp at Auschwitz and other musical groups formed in Nazi death camps have been lifted up as the triumph of beauty in the midst of human-caused ugliness. The cellist of Sarajevo is another example of beauty in the midst of tragedy. There are countless cases of truly beautiful deeds of heroism and sacrifice in places where ugliness and inhumanity seem to triumph. The fact that we recognize these events indicates that there may be a commonness in our recognition of beauty as well as a commonness in our recognition of its opposite.
If we return to Whitehead’s definition of beauty as order and the human perception of beauty as the recognition of order, certainly there is a basic sense of order that is inherent in the universe. Beauty does not exist only for human perception. Order exists where we have not yet perceived it. A tiny blossom deep in the forest that flourishes and withers without ever being noticed by a human being is still beautiful.
So I will argue with the old saying. Beauty exists even where it is not beheld. And I will even take a small issue with Whitehead. Order does not need to be perceived in order to give beauty to the universe. Our sense that humans are somehow necessary to the recognition of beauty is probably more a statement of our own inflated egos than of some objective truth.
We do, however, have a unique role in relationship to beauty. We have the ability to perceive and ponder its nature. We have the ability to be moved by music and art and mathematics. We have a sense of appreciation for beauty that may not be completely unique to humans, but of which we are, nonetheless deeply aware.
A life spent in the pursuit of beauty is a wise investment.
I have an album downloaded onto my phone of Yo-Yo Ma, “Inspired by Bach: The Cello Suites.” I play excerpts from that album when driving, but also when I’m feeling a bit down. I think that the music would be soothing if I were experiencing pain or grief. Sometimes it seems to me to be a fortunate thing that I simply was alive at the same time as the great cellist and have access to the technology to hear the beauty he produces. I’ll never be a cellist. I don’t have the skill to produce such beauty. But I feel fortunate to be able to recognize and enjoy it. More importantly, I realize that the beauty is larger than me. Bach died 200 years before I was born. The beauty of his music will continue for millennia after my time on this earth has come to its end.
Beauty, it seems, is more enduring than any of its beholders.
They say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The actual origins of the quote go back to at least the third century BC, but a lot of people have had their own versions of the idea over the years. Ben Franklin wrote in Poor Richard’s Almanack in 1741: “Beauty, like supreme dominion is but supported by opinion.” Shakespeare wrote, “Beauty is bought by judgement of the eye.” The basic idea is that the perception of beauty is subjective.
Certainly there are a lot of different opinions about art and music and even personal items like clothing and appearance. Some things are attractive to some and not attractive to others.
There is a bit of a debate as to whether or not the perception of beauty is a uniquely human characteristic. Some argue that our ability to enjoy beauty is something that makes humans unique. Others argue that animals perceive beauty. They certainly are attracted to certain things and less attracted to other things. Animals “chose” mates, but it is not clear whether such is the product of cognitive reflection or simply a reaction to an instinct.
There are others who will argue that beauty is an entirely made up concept - that it is arbitrary and that there is nothing that is more or less beautiful than anything else. It is simply an arbitrary value assigned by human judgment.
It seems to me, however, that there may be an objective reality that is beauty. After all there is a kind of order to the universe. When things get out of balance, they tend to correct themselves without human intervention. The movement of stars and planets has a type of logic that makes them predictable to a keen observer. Modern scientific method is based on “laws” of nature.
I think that the idea of beauty as an objective reality began to stir in my consciousness back in my college days. I had a friend who was both a theologian and a mathematician. That particular combination of thought specializations is more common than one might think. Alfred North Whitehead is still revered for his contributions to both mathematics and philosophy. Whitehead wrote, “Art is the imposing of pattern on experience, and our aesthetic enjoyment is recognition of the pattern.”
At any rate, my friend was so delighted by the orderliness of a mathematical formula that there was a kind of euphoria that seized him when he solved a particularly difficult one. I was not particularly interested in calculus and other forms of higher math as a college student, but I couldn’t deny the joy that mathematical manipulations brought to my friend. As a philosophy and Christian thought major, I began to ask myself about whether or not there is something in the basic order of the universe that is by nature beautiful.
Another way to think about the issue is to recognize that there are some things that are nearly universally perceived as ugly. War is ugly. Those who are victims sense its ugliness. Those who fight will report that it is ugly. Those who commit nations to war will speak of it as a “necessary evil.” We humans are pretty consistent in our assessment that the muck and mayhem of killing people is not a pretty endeavor. Perhaps it would be easier for us to reach agreement that there are some things that are inherently ugly and that there is an objective reality that is the absence of beauty.
Except that we recognize beauty in the midst of the most horrific of circumstances. The famous orchestra in the main camp at Auschwitz and other musical groups formed in Nazi death camps have been lifted up as the triumph of beauty in the midst of human-caused ugliness. The cellist of Sarajevo is another example of beauty in the midst of tragedy. There are countless cases of truly beautiful deeds of heroism and sacrifice in places where ugliness and inhumanity seem to triumph. The fact that we recognize these events indicates that there may be a commonness in our recognition of beauty as well as a commonness in our recognition of its opposite.
If we return to Whitehead’s definition of beauty as order and the human perception of beauty as the recognition of order, certainly there is a basic sense of order that is inherent in the universe. Beauty does not exist only for human perception. Order exists where we have not yet perceived it. A tiny blossom deep in the forest that flourishes and withers without ever being noticed by a human being is still beautiful.
So I will argue with the old saying. Beauty exists even where it is not beheld. And I will even take a small issue with Whitehead. Order does not need to be perceived in order to give beauty to the universe. Our sense that humans are somehow necessary to the recognition of beauty is probably more a statement of our own inflated egos than of some objective truth.
We do, however, have a unique role in relationship to beauty. We have the ability to perceive and ponder its nature. We have the ability to be moved by music and art and mathematics. We have a sense of appreciation for beauty that may not be completely unique to humans, but of which we are, nonetheless deeply aware.
A life spent in the pursuit of beauty is a wise investment.
I have an album downloaded onto my phone of Yo-Yo Ma, “Inspired by Bach: The Cello Suites.” I play excerpts from that album when driving, but also when I’m feeling a bit down. I think that the music would be soothing if I were experiencing pain or grief. Sometimes it seems to me to be a fortunate thing that I simply was alive at the same time as the great cellist and have access to the technology to hear the beauty he produces. I’ll never be a cellist. I don’t have the skill to produce such beauty. But I feel fortunate to be able to recognize and enjoy it. More importantly, I realize that the beauty is larger than me. Bach died 200 years before I was born. The beauty of his music will continue for millennia after my time on this earth has come to its end.
Beauty, it seems, is more enduring than any of its beholders.