(BLOG SERIES) Rebel Music - What is Beauty? [Part 2.1]: Platonism and the Shaping of the Idea of Beauty
 |
| Plato |
II. What is Beauty?
“Beholding
beauty with the eye of the mind,” says Plato, “he will be enabled to bring
forth… true virtue to become the friend of God and be immortal, if mortal man
may.”[i] This
notion of beauty might seem strange to people today, a notion that seems so
mystical and so heaven-oriented, very unlike our idea of beauty that
essentially means “whatever fits my taste”.
But to
understand why someone like Plato and the civilization behind us that he
influenced a lot would think of beauty this way, we should understand the view
on the world with the said philosopher’s metaphysics as basis. So, put on your
thinking cap first before you proceed. I promise to make this as simple as
possible.
Plato saw the
world as a mere “shadow” of a higher realm, a “Platonic heaven” as many
philosophers today might call it. This realm is the realm of forms. All
material, worldly things that we encounter in everyday life are just foretastes,
you might say, of what awaits in the realm of forms. For instance, all trees in
this world are just but imperfect participants of the perfect, immaterial form
of Tree in the realm of forms.
Platonic
Heaven
What lead
Plato to think this is the case? To understand, consider three objects: a
triangular road sign, a triangle carefully drawn on a whiteboard, and a
triangle carelessly sketched on a seat of a moving school bus by a child. What
do they have in common? Triangularity, of course. This thing – triangularity –
is what Plato will call a “form”. But Plato will ask: what exactly is that
“triangularity” which is shared by these three objects?
In his
analysis, a form will always be (1) immaterial, (2) perfect, (3) eternal. Since
triangularity is the form which is shared by all triangular things, then
triangularity cannot be just another “thing” alongside other triangle things,
otherwise it will also require participation with another form. This means that
triangularity cannot be material.
Plato also
believed that our standards of good and bad is based on the forms. When we say
that the triangle drawn carefully with the help of a ruler is a nicely drawn
triangle or that the triangle drawn with broken, unclosed sides is a badly
drawn triangle, we have its form as its standard. But if the form is the
standard, then it cannot be defective, since for it to be defective means it
has failed to live up to its standard, which cannot be the case because it is
already the standard! It follows, then, that forms are perfect, lacking
in nothing, for it is the measure of all things that share in it.
Lastly, forms
are also non-conventional. They weren’t just invented by men. Triangularity is
not an invention of people or a group of people. Sure, the word ‘triangle’ is
an obviously conventional term, but triangularity itself, and the properties
that flow from it (that it is three-sided, that the Pythagorean theorem applies
to right triangles, etc.) were discovered. Also, even if we destroy all
the triangles in the world, that doesn’t mean we have erased triangularity, for
we can create new triangles again afterwards. This points to the fact that the
forms do not have existence that is grounded on the material universe, for the
material universe may be destroyed, but the forms in which the material
universe participates in will persist. This means that the forms are eternal,
unchanging, and unalterable.
Besides
pointing to the high, Platonic view on the forms, Plato’s doctrine of the forms
also gives us his view on what the world is: that it points to something
beyond itself; something that is heavenly, that is mystical, and that we
are subject to its “laws”. It also means that for Plato, real knowledge cannot
be attained until one gets into direct contact with the forms, which happens
only when the soul leaves the body in death, the body being characterized as a
“prison” for the soul.
Of course,
Plato’s doctrine of the forms needs a little readjusting, which is exactly what
Aristotle did with it[ii] (and
the Aristotelian version is the correct one, or so I believe). Nonetheless, the
Platonic idea that the world, because of the forms, are subject to a higher “law”
that it should “obey” if it is to remain orderly, was never abandoned. In fact,
as paganism is, little by little, obliterated by the rise of Christianity in
the west, early Christian thinkers such as St. Augustine and St. Justin Martyr
never shunned Platonic ideas, or at least those which can be reconciled with
Christianity. In fact, they did the opposite. Platonism was “baptized” and even
used as an intellectual weapon by Christians to fight heresy.
Because of
Plato, the world was oriented to a goal. It showed us that this place that all
of us live in actually points to something outside it, and that everything in
the world are just shadows of the real deal. This includes everything that is
beautiful. As we’ll see, his ideas influenced many generations of how artists
would craft their works.
Now, before
we proceed to the development of the idea of beauty after Plato, anybody who
has read his works might smell something fishy with what I just said. “Isn’t
Plato a hater of art?”, one might ask. “Didn’t he, for instance, wanted to ban
poets in his ideal state?”[iii] “Isn’t
it that Plato saw art as a hindrance to real learning?”
Those are
actually great questions. I have three points to give in response.
The questions
seem to expose that Plato cannot have a proper theory of aesthetics since he
despised art, which is of course a source of aesthetic experience for us. But
even though we say that it is indeed the case that Plato despised art, this
doesn’t mean we cannot use his other ideas in developing a theory on beauty. To
understand, I think it’s useful to draw an analogy with Aristotle. Aristotle
held a controversial view that women are inferior to men, or that men are
superior beings than women. But even if that’s what he believed, his
contemporary defenders will claim (and rightly so) that his doctrine of
essentialism can indeed be used as a metaphysical grounding for arguing that
women are indeed equal to men!
We can say
the same thing with Plato. Even if he wasn’t a fan of art, we can develop his ideas
and give a proper theory on art (and beauty in general) through it. Just
because he believed something doesn’t mean we cannot use his other views in
proving something contrary to it.
Second, a
proper understanding of Plato’s view on art ought to be exposed here.[iv] If the
world is, you might say, an “imitation” of the world of forms; for Plato, our
works of art are “imitations of the imitation”. We now have to insert in here
his doctrine of imitation or copying (Greek, mimesis). The one copied
and the copy are not in the same level of reality. When an artist, for example,
copies a human face, the face is in a higher ontological status when compared
to the artist’s rendition of it. And since the artist’s rendition is on a lower
level of reality than the actual face, then it is metaphysically “farther” from
the world of forms. From this comes Plato’s “worry”, which we can read in the Republic:
that art “seems to be a corruption of the mind of all listeners who do not
possess, as an antidote a knowledge of its real nature.”[v] Since
art is just an “imitation of the imitation”, our own interpretation of what the
world is, it is therefore just a symbol or a sign, pointing toward a higher
reality. Just as our world points to another realm, so does art point to the
world. This means that art is just a very indirect instrument in knowing the
truth. Plato’s worry is that people who love art, because he himself admits
that it has a certain glamour that attracts people,[vi] will
not know art’s true nature. Instead of being a symbol toward knowing the truth,
the danger is that the symbol is interpreted as the truth; that the
admirers of art fix their gaze to what is a mere pointer. It’s like staring at
the finger that points to the moon. You’re a fool if you do so.
This is a
very interesting point since it seems to make it clear that Plato doesn’t
despise art simply because it’s art, but rather because of its possible
effects in us. I would even argue that if Plato was living today, he will
be even more justified with having such a concern. What’s worse: what if art,
instead of being used as a symbol for truth, is used as an instrument for
spreading lies and irrationality? I would argue that this is indeed the case
with regards to modern music, but I’m getting ahead of myself. We’ll get to
that later.
My third and
last point is that when interpreted properly, Plato actually doesn’t despise
all forms of art. In his Republic, Plato actually is against the
banning of hymns to the gods and the praises of good men.[vii] Plato
isn’t some coercive dictator that wants everyone to become a philosopher for
knowledge’s sake. He knew that not everyone was called to be a philosopher and
therefore not everyone will be able to dig deeper into the mysteries of the
world through philosophy. If they cannot do so, then at least they ought to be
provided “images” so that they may learn to revere the gods of the state and
respect and imitate good people.
Society
of Platonists
This third
point is crucial for our discussion, since this makes clear the fact that art
is able to shape one’s morality and culture, which means how we produce our
artworks matter. Whatever we do, whatever we express, is an “imagery” of what
we think should be done and what kind of society we belong to. More on this
later.
Plato’s
metaphysical view of the world as something under the “providence” of something
higher has radically shaped how the builders of western civilization saw
ethics, religion, the society at large, and hence art and beauty. “Peace” says
St. Augustine, “is the tranquility of order”. At the heart of Platonism was
peace, for there was order: the order of existence. This shows us how the
people that he influenced valued right “reason” (Greek, λόγος, “Logos”, also translated
as “word”)
for there is order in
proper reasoning. This same “Logos”, or “word”, as we know it, is the same Word
that not only orders, but redeems: “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling
among us” (John 1:14).
As I have already said, Platonism also became the foundation
of art and the beauty that comes with it. Everything artistic, everything
beautiful can only be truly artistic/beautiful if it reflects the Divine, if it
reflects the “other world”. Art, then, developed a symbiotic relationship with
Religion. Michaelangelo’s Pietà, Palestrina’s sacred hymns, the Basilica
of St. Peter in Rome, Dante’s Divine Comedy; all these proves the
marriage between how we make our artworks and how we express reverence to God
and the Church.
This is not to say, of course, that every single
work of art in the past was always religious, strictly speaking. The point,
though, is that reverence is always the foundation of art. It’s practically
impossible to find an artwork that will be considered “sacrilegious”, or if you
want to do such a thing, you better prepare for a public outcry.
Once again, only that which is connected to the
transcendent (or to the immaterial, perfect, and eternal) can be considered as
authentic art. St. Thomas Aquinas’ ideas on beauty drives the point home on
this one.
(To be continued...)
(To be continued...)
[ii]
Aristotle adapted Plato’s conception of the forms but rejected the idea of a
“realm” in which these forms reside. Aristotle thought the forms coexist with a
thing’s matter, hence developing the Aristotelian doctrine of Hylomorphism. For
a contemporary defense of Hylomorphism, see Edward Feser (2014) Scholastic
Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction, (2019) Aristotle’s Revenge:
The Metaphysical foundations of Physical and Biological Science, David
Oderberg (2007) Real Essentialism
[iii]
Plato, Republic, 595a
[iv] What I will give in the rest of the
paragraph is just a short summary of Plato’s theory on Art. See José Juan
González, A Philosophy of Art in Plato’s Republic: An Analysis of Collingwood’s
Proposal, published in Proceedings of the European Society for Aesthetics, Vol.
2 (2010) for a longer, more academic treatment on the matter.
[v] Republic,
595b
[vi]
R.G. Collingwood, Plato’s Philosophy of Art, published in Mind: A
Quarterly Review of Psychology and Philosophy (1925), XXXIV, p. 168
[vii] González,
A Philosophy of Art in Plato’s Republic
Comments
Post a Comment