Plato's Belief In Objective Beauty

  • Thread starter Thread starter Image_of_God
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

Image_of_God

Guest
I have become so infatuated by Plato’s idea of Objective Beauty. I am reading Plato currently and I am just so fascinated by his Dialogues, most especially those dealing with the “realm of Ideas.”
I have some questions.

What does “Objective Beauty” consist of according to Plato and to the Catholic Church?

Is “Objective Beauty” God Himself?

Is order and symmetry necessary for something to be beautiful?

What would a beautiful soul be like?

In what way do the beautiful partake in “Objective Beauty”?

Is every human being beautiful (that is, takes part in “Objective Beauty”)?

And finally, if someone is more subjectively beautiful than another, does it necessarily follow that he is more objectively beautiful than the other?
 
I don’t think Plato really “defines” the Forms, other than to say that they are the “most fulfilled” (not a quote…) of their kind.

I think that God is Objective Beauty, and so we all are reflections of Objective Beauty.
 
Spirithound said:
I don’t think Plato really “defines” the Forms, other than to say that they are the “most fulfilled” (not a quote…) of their kind.

I think that God is Objective Beauty, and so we all are reflections of Objective Beauty.
Click to expand...
Thank you very much. I shall consider this.
 
It is important when considering Plato not to place his cosmology into our own. Plato is an ancient thinker and not a Christian. Beauty in Plato is an ideal form and is not the highest value. In Plato the Good, ineffable and undefinable, is the highest. Everything in Plato is soul. The Cosmos is alive, matter is of no importance. The soul is what matters.

Beauty is of a lower order than the Good. First we have the good, then the genera, and then the forms caused by the mixing of the genera.

The five genera are: Being, Sameness, Difference, Motion and Rest. These mix and from these we get the forms. These ideal forms are what you are talking about. The world we know, as contingent and material, can only “participate” in the forms. But the forms are not God. For that you must think of the term Plato uses - The Good. The world we know is mostly soul for Plato. Only tiny bits of matter are needed. Matter is irrelevant. Soul is what matters. To strive for the good and always look to it. To attune oneself to the Good.

We cannot judge Plato by our beliefs but I seems to me his thinking is certainly superior to many modern materialist and atheistic philosophies and is worthier of our consideration.

Understanding that for Plato the most important thing to tend to, to care about, is the condition of our souls explains why for Plato an atheist should be sentenced to death (The Laws) or why in the Phaedo Socrates worries little about dying - for the body in Platonic philosophy has little importance. This context seems harsh to us because we value life on earth and we as christians are also taught to protect our bodies as holy vessels. But this is not the case in Platonic philosophy. So we read Plato, and we either read historically, understanding the philosophy exegetically without forming judgment. Or else we read taking from it those things which are of interest to our own views. There are many attitudes with which to approach a philosophy, even if we don’t agree with it on every point. For Plato, the body is a mirage, a phantasm. That doesn’t mean that he does not think we need to care for it, since its degradation brings down the soul. But if the individual is so far degraded that no avenue can return him to the Good, then in that case Plato resorts to harsh punishments. This is why for Plato exercise/sports and education are so important. Education: to enlighten the soul. Sports: to keep the body healthy so that one can tune towards the Good.

The value of ancient philosophies can be thought of in various ways. On one hand it lets us know where we were, how we thought and how we came to God and how we developed in that relation. On the other hand since Plato and other ancient philosophers worked so hard to understand basic questions that have not changed, it helps to humble us, for we understand that we have come hardly any distance in understanding by way of philosophical pursuits, the answers of those questions. Philosophy is a flawed human endeavor. Truly, philosophy is simply the love of wisdom. We aspire to it knowing its limitations for us as finite beings.

In comparison to Platonic philosophy, modern philosophy, which owes so much to him and to Aristotle, has really gone downhill. I could write an explanation of that free-fall into the abyss but I don’t know how interested anyone is in the topic.

It is worth returning to Plato for his questions, and for many reasons I can think of but that space does not permit right now.

God be with you.
 
carmalina said:
It is important when considering Plato not to place his cosmology into our own. Plato is an ancient thinker and not a Christian. Beauty in Plato is an ideal form and is not the highest value. In Plato the Good, ineffable and undefinable, is the highest. Everything in Plato is soul. The Cosmos is alive, matter is of no importance. The soul is what matters.

Beauty is of a lower order than the Good. First we have the good, then the genera, and then the forms caused by the mixing of the genera.

The five genera are: Being, Sameness, Difference, Motion and Rest. These mix and from these we get the forms. These ideal forms are what you are talking about. The world we know, as contingent and material, can only “participate” in the forms. But the forms are not God. For that you must think of the term Plato uses - The Good. The world we know is mostly soul for Plato. Only tiny bits of matter are needed. Matter is irrelevant. Soul is what matters. To strive for the good and always look to it. To attune oneself to the Good.

We cannot judge Plato by our beliefs but I seems to me his thinking is certainly superior to many modern materialist and atheistic philosophies and is worthier of our consideration.

Understanding that for Plato the most important thing to tend to, to care about, is the condition of our souls explains why for Plato an atheist should be sentenced to death (The Laws) or why in the Phaedo Socrates worries little about dying - for the body in Platonic philosophy has little importance. This context seems harsh to us because we value life on earth and we as christians are also taught to protect our bodies as holy vessels. But this is not the case in Platonic philosophy. So we read Plato, and we either read historically, understanding the philosophy exegetically without forming judgment. Or else we read taking from it those things which are of interest to our own views. There are many attitudes with which to approach a philosophy, even if we don’t agree with it on every point. For Plato, the body is a mirage, a phantasm. That doesn’t mean that he does not think we need to care for it, since its degradation brings down the soul. But if the individual is so far degraded that no avenue can return him to the Good, then in that case Plato resorts to harsh punishments. This is why for Plato exercise/sports and education are so important. Education: to enlighten the soul. Sports: to keep the body healthy so that one can tune towards the Good.

The value of ancient philosophies can be thought of in various ways. On one hand it lets us know where we were, how we thought and how we came to God and how we developed in that relation. On the other hand since Plato and other ancient philosophers worked so hard to understand basic questions that have not changed, it helps to humble us, for we understand that we have come hardly any distance in understanding by way of philosophical pursuits, the answers of those questions. Philosophy is a flawed human endeavor. Truly, philosophy is simply the love of wisdom. We aspire to it knowing its limitations for us as finite beings.

In comparison to Platonic philosophy, modern philosophy, which owes so much to him and to Aristotle, has really gone downhill. I could write an explanation of that free-fall into the abyss but I don’t know how interested anyone is in the topic.

It is worth returning to Plato for his questions, and for many reasons I can think of but that space does not permit right now.

God be with you.
Click to expand...
Very good answer! Thank you!
 
Image_of_God said:
Is “Objective Beauty” God Himself?
Click to expand...
Not too long ago, the Vatican published part of a letter written by Pope Benedict on the inseparability of objective truth from objective beauty, which I thought sounded very Platonic.

I took the following from the Vatican website for some writing I had done on the topic when it first came out; I’m not sure if the link still exists but here is a press release that’s still around.
“We are reminded of the urgent need for a renewed dialogue between aesthetics and ethics, between beauty, truth and goodness”, the Pope writes, "not only by contemporary cultural and artistic debate, but also by daily reality. In fact, at various levels, there is a dramatically-evident split … between the two dimensions: that of the search for beauty - understood however in reductive terms as exterior form, as an appearance to be pursued at all costs - and that of the truth and goodness of actions undertaken to achieve certain ends.

“Indeed”, he adds, “searching for a beauty that is foreign to or separate from the human search for truth and goodness would become (as unfortunately happens) mere asceticism and, especially for the very young, a path leading to ephemeral values and to banal and superficial appearances, even a flight into an artificial paradise that masks inner emptiness”.
By that understanding, God would definitely be objectively beautiful and therefore, objective beauty, itself.
 
passus said:
Not too long ago, the Vatican published part of a letter written by Pope Benedict on the inseparability of objective truth from objective beauty, which I thought sounded very Platonic.

I took the following from the Vatican website for some writing I had done on the topic when it first came out; I’m not sure if the link still exists but here is a press release that’s still around.
“We are reminded of the urgent need for a renewed dialogue between aesthetics and ethics, between beauty, truth and goodness”, the Pope writes, "not only by contemporary cultural and artistic debate, but also by daily reality. In fact, at various levels, there is a dramatically-evident split … between the two dimensions: that of the search for beauty - understood however in reductive terms as exterior form, as an appearance to be pursued at all costs - and that of the truth and goodness of actions undertaken to achieve certain ends.

“Indeed”, he adds, “searching for a beauty that is foreign to or separate from the human search for truth and goodness would become (as unfortunately happens) mere asceticism and, especially for the very young, a path leading to ephemeral values and to banal and superficial appearances, even a flight into an artificial paradise that masks inner emptiness”.
By that understanding, God would definitely be objectively beautiful and therefore, objective beauty, itself.
Click to expand...
I thought that God would have to be objective beauty, but I wasn’t sure. For we all partake in some kind of beauty and it would seem that its source would be our Creator. Thank you!
 
But you can see that the pope equates beauty of God to the Good. Not to externalities.
It is clear that beauty cannot be an attribute of evil, neither is true beauty a superficial, material beauty such as that found in a finite body.
 
carmalina said:
But you can see that the pope equates beauty of God to the Good. Not to externalities.
It is clear that beauty cannot be an attribute of evil,
Click to expand...
However, all creation, by nature of its creator, must have in it some beauty, correct? Which brings us to an interesting question…

Is Satan, in any way, beautiful?
carmalina said:
neither is true beauty a superficial, material beauty such as that found in a finite body.
Click to expand...
Entirely correct, and an important distinction to make.
 
Years ago, I tried my hand at discerning the nature of beauty. I ended up concluding that beauty pretty much aligns with conformity to the will of God.
 
passus said:
However, all creation, by nature of its creator, must have in it some beauty, correct? Which brings us to an interesting question…

Is Satan, in any way, beautiful?

{snip}
Click to expand...
Not anymore. He was, as originally created. However, he lost all beauty when he chose to completely deny God.
 
That is a huge question of Satan and whether he is beautiful.

Here is my thought on that.

Those who fall away from the good have a difficulty in discerning what the good is.
They cannot see and are ‘taken’ by appearances. Phantasms of the good appear to them as the good. They are easily tricked, especially in the domains of their spiritual weakness. In such a state, Satan could perhaps appear to that person as beautiful…but this ‘beauty’ would be a phantasm, not true beauty but a lie. It would be a deceiving appearance. Sometimes material beauty seems repugnant to us because we see the ugliness in it, the lack of good. But to some that material beauty is mistaken for real beauty because they are mesmerized, already in a drugged state, not themselves, due to sin.

There is a delusional mood that can prevail over a culture…Things that are immoral seem ‘ok’ to some, even desirable, attractive. This is a stupor. Illusion hangs over everything. False gods reign.

In such a situation, to know the good, to distinguish the beautiful and good requires a fierce desire and intention. To sway away from the good seems easy and even palatable. Catholics must not deviate from Church teaching. It is dangerous for the health of the soul to do so. We must learn to distinguish the good and the truly beautiful. Socrates tried to do this and found it difficult. We are just everyday people, not philosophers, but we have our faith to guide us through the perilous waters of life.
 
carmalina said:
That is a huge question of Satan and whether he is beautiful.

Here is my thought on that.

Those who fall away from the good have a difficulty in discerning what the good is.
They cannot see and are ‘taken’ by appearances. Phantasms of the good appear to them as the good. They are easily tricked, especially in the domains of their spiritual weakness. In such a state, Satan could perhaps appear to that person as beautiful…but this ‘beauty’ would be a phantasm, not true beauty but a lie. It would be a deceiving appearance. Sometimes material beauty seems repugnant to us because we see the ugliness in it, the lack of good. But to some that material beauty is mistaken for real beauty because they are mesmerized, already in a drugged state, not themselves, due to sin.

There is a delusional mood that can prevail over a culture…Things that are immoral seem ‘ok’ to some, even desirable, attractive. This is a stupor. Illusion hangs over everything. False gods reign.

In such a situation, to know the good, to distinguish the beautiful and good requires a fierce desire and intention. To sway away from the good seems easy and even palatable. Catholics must not deviate from Church teaching. It is dangerous for the health of the soul to do so. We must learn to distinguish the good and the truly beautiful. Socrates tried to do this and found it difficult. We are just everyday people, not philosophers, but we have our faith to guide us through the perilous waters of life.
Click to expand...
This is beautiful!
 
QUOTE=carmalina;4898133]
Click to expand...
…
Click to expand...
In comparison to Platonic philosophy, modern philosophy, which owes so much to him and to Aristotle, has really gone downhill. I could write an explanation of that free-fall into the abyss but I don’t know how interested anyone is in the topic.
Click to expand...
Hi, I’m a little late to this thread, but I really enjoyed what you wrote above and would MOST DEFINITELY be interested in your explanation of the free-fall into modern philosophy. If you felt like going to the trouble to write it, you’d definitely have an interested reader here.

Thanks!
 
Hopeful,
I am in the last two paragraphs of a very intense paper on Kant which should be finished tonight. Phew. So I will respond to the question of freefall over the weekend, here and/or maybe in a new thread.

🙂 thank you.

Carmalina
 
carmalina said:
Hopeful,
So I will respond to the question of freefall over the weekend, here and/or maybe in a new thread.

🙂 thank you.

Carmalina
Click to expand...
Thanks, Carmalina. No pressure. Ony if/when it is convenient for you and I look forward to it!
 
passus said:
However, all creation, by nature of its creator, must have in it some beauty, correct? Which brings us to an interesting question…

Is Satan, in any way, beautiful?
Click to expand...
Well, I have seen Lucifer, and he is very beautiful. I don’t know whether the name Satan is correctly attributed to Lucifer. And, in that movie “O God” George Burns has a line in which he equates the appearance of the ‘devil’ with God, saying that the look the same. I don’t know where this idea originates…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top