I will be presenting a talk on
concepts of the beautiful in Plato and in modern biology to an English class at
Northern. This post is a version of my
talk.
Plato presents all or almost all
of his thought in a series of dialogues.
The central figure in each of these is either Socrates or someone who sounds
just like Socrates. Most of what we know
about Socrates comes either from Plato or from another student named Xenophon,
or from the playwright Aristophanes. My
discussion will present a concept of the beautiful that is based on the first
two sources.
Socrates was fond of “what is”
questions: what is beauty, truth, justice, etc.? In the Greater Hippias he raises the question:
what is the beautiful? The sophist
Hippias first tries to answer the question the way most people would answer it,
by naming beautiful things. The
beautiful is a beautiful girl, he offers.
I could offer Catherine Zeta Jones (in Zorro) and Brad Pit (in A River
Runs Through It) as examples, though I am more confident of my answer in the
first case. By contrast, my fourth grade
teacher Mrs. Fezer and Donald Trump stand as examples of the ugly.
The problem with such an answer,
according to Socrates, is that it doesn’t tell us what puts these items in the
same category. What does a beautiful man
and a beautiful sunset have in common? Consider
the following by way of analogy.
Red powder plus oil makes red paint.
That is a materialist explanation
of the latter. This stuff plus that
stuff. It answers the what is question
so long as we are confident that we understand the materials.
Heat plus iron equals red, hot, iron.
For a long time science offered a
materialist explanation: heat was a substance that can be transferred from one
sponge to another, as when heat leaks out from a hot plate into the dinner
table. Today we understand heat to be
molecular energy, which is a formalist explanation. That’s more like what Socrates is looking
for.
A hemispherical shape plus a ceramic material makes a
bowl.
Here we have a perfect Socratic
answer. Fix a point, draw a circle around
it and draw a line through the diameter.
Rotate the circle a full turn around the diameter, and you have a
sphere. Cut the sphere in half, and you
have a hemisphere. That, in geometrical
precision, is what is added to the material to make a bowl. So:
X plus a maiden makes a beauty.
Solve for X.
Socrates’ answer is that the
beautiful is the good. This looks
plausible. The good plus a human body
makes a beautiful person. The good plus
something edible makes a beautiful meal.
The good plus writing makes a beautiful book. It raises, however, a number of difficult
questions.
Perhaps the least difficult is
this: what is the good? The answer is
easy: the good is the choice worthy. The
good road is the one we choose over the bad road. The good man is the one we choose as a friend
and/or ally, etc. This answer obviously
doesn’t tell us what to choose, but it explains how we sort out the
examples. The beautiful maiden is the
one he would choose if he were faced with a choice. We still need to know why this maiden is more
choice worthy than that one.
A more difficult problem is
distinguishing the beautiful from the good.
If they were exactly the same thing, why do we need two words? A still more difficult problem is the fact
that some things that seem to be beautiful are not good at all. A cruise looks beautiful if you don’t know
that the boat is going to sink. To an
addict, nothing is more beautiful than a lump of black tar heroin dissolving in
a heated spoon.
Socrates’ answer is that genuine
beauty arises from the accurate perception of what is genuinely good and that
the latter is good from all angles. If
something looks good before we choose it and then looks bad afterward, the
former was not the perception of a genuine good. I think of the demonic hag in horror
movies. He sees her as a beautiful maiden
when she is in fact a withered beast who is going to eat his soul. If you want a less colorful example, think of
junk food or blood money. Just ask Judas
about the value of that thirty bucks just before he hangs himself.
Socrates understood intelligence
as the capacity to see things for what they really are. The ability to appreciate the beautiful is
the ability to appreciate what is genuinely good and will be seen to be so
before and after a choice, even if the observer is not involved in the
matter. Someone who can make good
choices for himself in each situation can usually recognize good and bad choices
made by others.
This fact, that intelligence can
recognize good choices available only to others, is key to understanding that
the beautiful is larger than the good.
The good for me is not the same as the good for someone else. This is not so because the good is the
selfish. A father may choose to
sacrifice himself to save his children or his spouse or his country. The good for me is restricted to choices I
can make. I can and must choose how to
vote in this next election. I cannot
choose to stand in defense of ancient Rome against barbarians but I can
appreciate and enjoy the story of those who did so.
The capacity for appreciating
what is beautiful enlarges and enriches the human soul. I can love the crews of American torpedo
planes as they heroically and fatally charged Japanese carriers at the battle
of Midway because I know that they attracted the Japanese fighters down and
left the carriers defenseless against American bombers from above. I can do so precisely because I wasn’t
there. I can admire Simone Biles as she
went from one perfect routine to another, with a body full of power and grace,
doing something I cannot chose to do.
Beauty is the honey in the
stories we tell. When Jean Valjean
steals a pair of candlesticks from his benefactor, Bishop Myriel, only to be
brought back by policeman who are sure of his crime, the Bishop informs them
that he gave these as a gift to Valjean.
By this gift, the Bishop buys back the soul of a wretched man. This of course, is fiction. It is Victor Hugo’s Les Miserables. One of my
best students, Miranda, noted that when I described this scene in a lecture my
eyes filled with tears.
The beautiful is rooted in the
good, as Socrates supposed. It flowers
larger than the most basic good and becomes something good in itself.
I remember that lecture well.
ReplyDeleteTwo questions:
If the good is what is worth choosing, then couldn't something immoral be good? For instance, New Gingrich chose to cheat on his cancer stricken wife with his mistress. This benefitted him in a number of ways. He gained a partner who he said understood him better and who was younger, more attractive and more energetic than his wife. He does not seem to have regretted his choice and, indeed, seems to have lived happily with his new partner ever since. His choice, then, seems relatively choice-worthy. But was it good?
Regarding beauty: If beauty is good, what do we call the quality we usually refer to as beauty when it describes something bad? Deadly storms or poison dart frogs come to mind.
Two good questions. I think I will respond in a new post.
ReplyDelete