Last I said Beauty might be the appearance of the True and Good. People these days seem to think that the appearance of a thing is not necessarily what it actually is, so I realise if I say it's the appearance, it can seem it is not really intrinsic to the True and the Good. Even in my mind, using the word 'appearance', I seem to split the appearance from what it's stuck on, like a mask, or clothing.
But isn't the purpose of appearance ultimately to really tell us about the thing appearing? Obviously in what I think is a broken world, it doesn't work out that way all the time. We know not to judge a book by its cover, because people like to just attract you to read their book with the cover, whether the cover really has to do with the book or not. Men are ultimately just trying to get what they want, and will be deceptive to do it. We also know we don't always see things as they really are; either our minds are broken, or else this messed-upness is normal.
I don't think it is normal. So, if the True and Good appear Beautiful, then they really are, because they are ultimate reality. Whatever is the umbrella under which other things exist has to be greater than what's under it. Philosophers a long time ago seemed to assume that whatever rules over this world; whatever created it, has to be equal to or greater than the world. One way to be greater is to be either more perfect, or actually Perfect (whole, complete, and lacking any defect). I equate the True, Good and Beautiful with ultimate reality, and if they are that, then they are candidates for perfect, too.
I'm sure study of Plato would help me in writing this, as he's the one who talked about Ideals and (maybe with other philosophers around then) set the foundation for real systematic thought about the incompleteness and defectiveness of this world and the perfection of what it comes from or is modelled after. But he thought that the physical world could not be perfect, whereas I think physicalness is also True, Good and Beautiful. I think something else must be wrong with the world besides its being concrete.
I haven't done much study of Beauty by people who have written it, but the impression from my experiences is that it is not merely an illusory appearance, but a real Thing, something you can sense with your mind and heart, communicated through things-that-are-beautiful (abstract or concrete).
What would you guess: C. S. Lewis said something about it in The Weight of Glory, wording what I had felt for years-
We do not merely want to see beauty, though, God knows, even that is bounty enough. We want something else which can hardly be put into words—to be united with the beauty we see, to pass into it, to receive it into ourselves, to bathe in it, to become part of it.
That is the sensation I got from reading The Lord of the Rings. I had such a painful longing to somehow break free of the chains that tether me to this bland existence, the prison of my mind, and to be part of the world, which is so beautiful; never again to be enchanted into thinking that there is no hope, no meaning, no loveliness, in existence.
Of course I went back into cynicism. I had some moments where I felt like I saw how things really are, and then that feeling passes. When it passes, one wonders if one dreamed it was real, of course. It may just be a feeling. But I feel there is likely something True about it: that it was real-er than all the grey, blank monotony of life as we see it.
Is that true? And is Beauty actually not simply appearance or illusion, but an actual thing that is part and parcel with Is-ness and Purpose? Is Beauty even substantive- touchable, tasteable?
No comments:
Post a Comment