Shaftesbury and Beauty

"All beauty is truth, just as all truth can be understood basically only through the meaning of form, that is, the meaning of beauty...Sense as such is not capable of perceiving this phenomenon, let alone understanding it in its ultimate origin. Where sense only is involved, where the relation we establish between ourselves and the world depends merely on our instincts and appetites, there is as yet no acces to the realm of form. The animal that is affected by the objects of its environment merely as stimuli which awaken its instincts and occasion certain reactions, is ignorant of all knowledge of the form of things. This knowledge does not spring from the force of desire as a direct sense reaction but from the force of pure contemplation, which is free of all desire for possession and of any act of direct seizure of the object. In this faculty of pure contemplation and of a pleasure which is not motivated by any 'interest' (is) the fundamental force behind all artistic enjoyment and all artistic creation." (Cassirir on Shaftesbury and Beauty)

I think Shaftesbury is making a very important point here. One understanding of beauty is often connected with the immediate effect on the eyes or senses. I think Shaftesbury points to animal instincts here and sees that such instincts correspond to an immediate action or desire to partake, touch, taste, or own the object. I think he is searching for a deeper understanding of beauty where contemplation is first required to appreciate what makes the object pleasing to the senses i.e. the process of creation and development and/or work involved to bring it to this point. He sees this undestanding as leading to the greatest possible aesthetic enjoyment. I see it as important because it removes the possibility of false motivations for considering beauty and instills a desire to acquire the traits of the beautiful object.

Seneca

"'Why do many adversities come to good men?' No evil can befall a good man; opposites do not mingle. Just as the countless rivers, the vast fall of rain from the sky, and the huge volume of mineral springs do not change the taste of the sea, do not even modify it, so the assaults of adversity do not weaken the spirit of a brave man. It always maintains its poise, and it gives its own colour to everything that happens; for it is mightier than all external things. And yet I do not mean to say that the brave man is insensible to these, but that he overcomes them, and being in all else unmoved and calm rises to meet whatever assails him. All his adversities he counts mere training. Who, moreover, if he is a man and intent upon the right, is not eager for reasonable toil and ready for duties accompanied by danger? To what energetic man is not idleness a punishment? Wrestlers, who make strength of body their chief concern, we see pitting themselves against none but the strongest, and they require of those who are preparing them for the arena that they use against them all their strength; they submit to blows and hurts, and if they do not find their match in single opponents, they engage with several at a time. Without an adversary, prowess shrivels. We see how great and how efficient it really is, only when it shows by endurance what it is capable of. Be assured that good men ought to act likewise; they should not shrink from hardships and difficulties, nor complain against fate; they should take in good part whatever happens, and should turn it to good. Not what you endure, but how you endure, is important."

I think this fits in well with Emerson's "Compensation" and gives maybe a reason why all things end up returning to their natural order. Seneca says that "no evil can befall a good man"; not that seemingly difficult things do not happen to them but because of how good men react to something that may seem bad changes that adversity to a learning and growing experience. This really is common sense. We see this at work in nature and in society. The muscle is torn in order to grow stronger, seperation from loved ones makes the bonds of love tighter. At the same time a lack of judgmenet can turn even minor ordeals into crisis and weaken us if we are not strong.

Madame Bovary

¨Avant qu'elle se mariat, elle avait cru avoir de l'amour; mais le bonheur qui aurait du resulter de cet amour n'étant pas venu, il fallait qu'elle se fut trompée, songeait-elle. Et Emma cherchait à savoir ce que l'on entendait au juste dans la vie par les mots de félicité, de passion et d'ivresse, qui lui avaient paru si beaux dans les livres....et elle ne pouvait s'imaginer à présent que ce calme où ell vivait fût le bonheur qu'elle avait rêvé.¨
(Before she married, she had believed that she possessed love; but with the happiness that should have been the result, not arriving, it must have been that she was mistaken, she thought. And Emma sought to find out just what was meant in life by the words felicity, passion, and euphoria, that had appeared so beautifully in books....and she could not presently imagine that this calm in which she lived was the happiness of which she had dreamed.)


To me it seems pretty clear that Emma has formed one idea of what happiness is from things that she has read or heard about, but not experienced. I think it this is often the case as we expect certain experiences to be constant bliss but we find that the true nature of happiness is something quite different. Not that intense joy doesn't take place but that real happiness is probably something less high-charged and more stable than what movies and literature present it as. I think we probably arrive at happiness after processes that require a bit of effort such as developing sincere gratitude for blessings, developing virtues in dealing with family and friends, and achieving goals that were difficult. Blissful happiness, while maybe not really existing, surely doesn't come in any lasting form as a result of “falling” into something.

"The Countryside Saved Him"

"Isak han forstod å arbeide, å drive sin håndtering. Nu var han blit en rik mand med en stor gård, men de mange kontanter som slumpen hadde ført indpå ham gjorde han dårlig bruk av: han gjæmte dem. Marken frelste ham. Hadde Isak levet nede i bygden vilde kanske den store verden ha indvirket litt endog på ham, der var så meget gildt, så fine forhold, han vilde ha kjøpt unødvendigheter og gåt med rød helgeskjorte til hverdag. Her i marken var han værnet mot alle overdrivelser, han levet i klar luft, han vasket sig søndag morgen og lauget sig når han var oppe ved fjældvandet." (Markens Grøde, Knut Hamsun)

(Isak understood how to work, to manage his affairs. He had now become a rich man with a large farm, but he managed poorly all the money that success had brought him: he hid it. The countryside saved him. If Isak had lived down in town the big world would probably have worked on him more, there was so much to consider, such fine conditions, he would have bought unecessary things and worn a red weekend shirt on weekdays. Here in the countryside he was protected from all exagerations, he lived in clear air, he bathed Sunday morning and when he was up by the mountain lake."

I am a city boy. I've been surrounded by civilization all my life. My perspective is probably affected by this but I find it incredibly interesting how our surroundings can influence us and get us to do things we normally would not do or even think about. This is not necessarily a negative thing for we enjoy many things from civilization. I think it is probably important though to be aware of motivations for actions so that we can constantly be aware of those things that have the most importance.

"CEUX qui accusent les hommes d'aller tousjours beant apres les choses futures, et nous apprennent à nous saisir des biens presens, et nous rassoir en ceux-là : comme n'ayants aucune prise sur ce qui est à venir, voire assez moins que nous n'avons sur ce qui est passé, touchent la plus commune des humaines erreurs : s'ils osent appeller erreur, chose à quoy nature mesme nous achemine, pour le service de la continuation de son ouvrage, nous imprimant, comme assez d'autres, cette imagination fausse, plus jalouse de nostre action, que de nostre science. Nous ne sommes jamais chez nous, nous sommes tousjours au delà. La crainte, le desir, l'esperance, nous eslancent vers l'advenir : et nous desrobent le sentiment et la consideration de ce qui est, pour nous amuser à ce qui sera, voire quand nous ne serons plus. Calamitosus est animus futuri anxius.

Ce grand precepte est souvent allegué en Platon, « Fay ton faict, et te congnoy. » Chascun de ces deux membres enveloppe generallement tout nostre devoir : et semblablement enveloppe son compagnon. Qui auroit à faire son faict, verroit que sa premiere leçon, c'est cognoistre ce qu'il est, et ce qui luy est propre. Et qui se cognoist, ne prend plus l'estranger faict pour le sien : s'ayme, et se cultive avant toute autre chose : refuse les occupations superflues, et les pensees, et propositions inutiles. Comme la folie quand on luy octroyera ce qu'elle desire, ne sera pas contente : aussi est la sagesse contente de ce qui est present, ne se desplait jamais de soy.

Epicurus dispense son sage de la prevoyance et soucy de l'advenir." (Montaigne, "Nos affections s'emportent au delà de nous")

(THOSE which still accuse men for ever gaping after future things, and go about to teach us, to take hold of present fortunes, and settle our selves upon them, as having no hold of that which is to come; yea much lesse than we have of that which is already past, touch and are ever harping upon the commonest huma ne error, if they dare call that an error, to which Nature her selfe, for the service of the continuation of her worke, doth address us, imprinting (as it doth many others) this false imagination in us, as more jealous of our actions, than of our knowledg e. We are never in our selves, but beyond. Feare, desire, and hope, draw us ever towards that which is to come, and remove our sense and consideration from that which is, to amuse us on that which shall be, yea when we shall be no more. Calamitosus est animus futuri anxius.1 'A minde in suspense what is to come, is in a pittifull case.' This noble precept is often alleaged in Plato, 'Follow thy businesse and know thy selfe;' Each of these two members, doth generally imply all our duty; and likewise enfolds his companion. He that should doe his businesse might perceive that his first lesson is, to know what he is, and what is convenient for him. And he that knoweth himselfe, takes no more anothers matters for his owne, but above all other things, loveth and correcteth himselfe, rejecteth superfluous occupations, idle imaginations, and unprofitable propositions. As if you grant follie what it desireth, it will no-whit be satisfied; so is wisdome content with that which is present, and never displeased with it selfe. Epicurus doth dispense with his age touching the foresight and care of what shall insue.)

The point of Montaigne, if I understand it, is that many of the emotions we feel have to do with events that possibly, may, perhaps, will occur in the future. Often these emotions have positive results, such as hope, and often they have negative results such as fear. From my perspective, the measure of the emotions usefulness lies in its impetus to action in the present since it is clearly the present that decides the future. "Wisdom is content with that which is present, and never displeased with it selfe."

"A study performed between 1907 and 1919 in 140,000 healthy adults applying for life insurance in the New York region suggested that a blood pressure of 140 (systolic)/90 (diastolic) mm Hg was abnormal because it reflected only 5-6% of the population in the United States (9); however, by nature, these early studies may not have been representative of the general population because they usually did not include subjects of lower socioeconomic status who could not afford insurance or patients who had been previously diagnosed with a disease. Nevertheless, on the basis of these early studies, a blood pressure of 140/90 mm Hg was adopted as the definition of hypertension."

I think that I'm seeing a pattern. How do we create a standard or definition of something? Often we have only that which is readily available or our experiences in order to understand things. In addition to the above example of creating a definition of "normality" in blood pressure, Milk has been used as the standard for substances containing calcium. For a long time nothing else was known to contain more calcium. Milk thus became the standard. It was a 10 and any other substance was given a ranking on this scale. I think this practice often applies to more abstract things like thinking patterns, conception of beauty, and cultural morals and norms. The French Academy of Arts for over a century had a very narrow definition of what was a beautiful painting. Those paintings which did not match this definition were rejected as was the case with the impressionist painters. The impressionists are now the recognized as beautiful while the old standard is almost forgotten.

Menteurs

"Secondement qu'il me souvient moins des offences receuës, ainsi que disoit cet ancien. Il me faudroit un protocolle, comme Darius, pour n'oublier l'offense qu'il avoit receue des Atheniens, faisoit qu'un page à touts les coups qu'il se mettoit à table, luy vinst rechanter par trois fois à l'oreille, Sire, souvienne vous des Atheniens, et que les lieux et les livres que je revoy, me rient tousjours d'une fresche nouvelleté." (Montaigne, Les Menteurs)

(I find some consolation, also, in the reflection that I have, in the words of a certain ancient author, a short memory for the injuries I have received. Like Darius, I should need a prompter. Wishing not to forget the insult he had suffered from the Athenians, the Persian king made one of his pages come and repeat three times in his ear, each time he sat down to table: "Sire, remember the Athenians"; and it consoles me too that the places I revisit and the books I reread always smile upon me with the freshness of novelty.)

I think that "having a short memory" is one of the most important elements of Christ-like love. It is quite ugly and sad what happens to individuals who dwell on past offenses. They seem to always be the topic of discussion. I just read how a lady in Iraq killed 10 people as a suicide bomber to avenge her two sons' deaths. The pain she felt was surely great but how unfortunate is it to cause more pain because of it! Better yet, it would be best to not be offended in the first place; to assume that what people do is not mean-spirited, that they really don't mean it, or understand. As I like to think, being naive is sometimes good. It is not naivety though. It is "thinking no evil."