Now, come to think of it, when it comes to some kinds of perfection, life is the only thing that can conceive of it. Think of a perfect circle. Nothing like that exists in the universe. The universe probably has absolutely no way of creating, conceiving of, or possessing such a thing, other than through you and other human beings.
Is the perfect circle a human construct? Is this what humanity is uniquely capable of achieving in the universe – some kinds of perfection. What other systems of perfection might there be?
Thinking a little bit further, it seems that this uniqueness actually applies to all our thoughts and feelings. They are quite unique in the universe – at least as we currently understand it. Is this worthy of note? Well kind of, but everything in the universe is unique too - every tiny arrangement of atoms, every sparkle of electromagnetic energy. Apart from that small rider, the uniqueness of the quality of our thoughts is quite astounding, and our capacity to imagine (what we conceive of as) perfection is even more astounding.
What then is beauty, but a kind of perfection? Is beauty objectively true, or just true for the beholder? Can we truly even imagine beauty? One of the things about beauty is its apparent transience. We need it before us to feel its full force.
Is it just as hard to imagine a perfect circle as it is to imagine the perfect human form? Maybe. But I suppose a perfect circle is, well, a circle – it is one thing, a simple idea. Perfect beauty, on the other hand, can take many forms, forms of the most complex subtlety that completely defy our imaginative ability to reproduce. Otherwise, I suppose, we could all possess beauty any time we liked. Maybe we wouldn’t need its life-like simulacrum. A universally accepted beauty, as constructed in the Ganymede story, is an attempt to create an objective human beauty. It is this objective beauty that is sought by the gods, that belongs to the gods.
Does objective beauty also lie in the perfection of a perfect circle? Is the perfect circle more a part of Einstein’s pantheism than the perfect human form?
In his recent book The Pursuit of Happiness (2006), Darrin McMahon develops the theme of beauty as it relates to happiness:
[35] For Plato, Eros’s potential for wickedness and folly demanded that desire be carefully disciplined. We can never hope to subdue Eros (nor would we want to), but we can direct his power toward the genuinely good and the genuinely beautiful, learning to love the right things in the right way. In the Symposium, Socrates begins to sketch the outlines of this education of desire, suggesting that the ascent to happiness will be a long and arduous process. Beginning in youth, the potential lover of the good is led gradually from the love of the physical beauty of individuals to the love of physical beauty in general. From there the apprentice is trained to put a higher value on beauty of the mind, gradually learning as a lover of wisdom, a philosopher, to look beyond what he once desired. “Whereas before, in servile and contemptible fashion, he was dominated by the individual case, loving the beauty of a boy, or a man, or a single human activity, now he directs his eyes to what is beautiful in general, as he turns to gaze upon the limitless ocean of beauty.” Onward and upward, the lover of wisdom ascends in search of the pure form of beauty, beauty itself:
[Quote from Symposium] ‘Such is the experience of the man who approaches, or is guided towards, love in the right way, beginning with the particular examples of beauty, but always returning from them to the search for that one beauty. He uses them like a ladder, climbing from the love of one person to love of two; from two to love of all physical beauty; from physical beauty to beauty in human behaviour; thence to beauty in subjects of study; from them he arrives finally at that branch of knowledge [36] which studies nothing but ultimate beauty. Then at last he understands what true beauty is.’
This final consummation — likened in the even more eroticized accounts given in the dialogues Phaedrus and the Republic to “intercourse” between the lover of wisdom and truth — can be described only as a sort of intellectual orgasm in which desire is stated and happiness flows forth. “That, if ever,” Socrates recounts in the Symposium, “is the moment…. when… life is worth living.”
This vision of the rapturous contemplation of beauty would have tremendous impact on the western mystical tradition.
To engage with beauty is a danger, because it can leave all else in a pall, with us abhorring the swill of human existence – that is unless we can expand our conception out into the uniqueness of all creation – but that does rather conflict with the daily frustrations and irritations we must all experience. In fact the contemplation of pure beauty must conflict with the very experience of being human – unless one is to become so other-worldly as to effectively transcend the foibles of daily existence. But that transcendence invites a callousness to suffering, an indifference to others’ wellbeing. It also invites projects of perfection-making that can trample all over those around us. It invites us to seek power and to enroll others in our vision for perfection. This drug of beauty is a dangerous thing.
Is Christianity more a moral system than a system of transcendence through contemplation of the perfection of beauty? The key doctrine of western civilization, including Christianity, is:
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
This underpins much western moral and political philosophy from the highest to the most street-wise and prosaic. In philosophy it is known as the ‘Golden Rule’.
It is simple and straightforward - an uncomplex guide to life.
Is it in tension with the cult of beauty? Probably… Does it create a whole new paradigm of value?
