There have been some interesting comments regarding beauty and I thought that I would post them as blog.
bucky said...
I suppose that poses the question of "is beauty good?" Does "beauty" inherently posses a quality of good or bad? If it does, then there is scriptural basis for what its standard is, but if it does not, then it would seem that the word "beauty" is only a synonym for "preferred" or "pleasant" (or "pretty" to the dismay of Coleridge regarding the description of a waterfall).
12:52 PM
Nick said...
Isn't beauty good? It seems that when you call something beautiful you are automatically inferring that it is good....
5:10 PM
bucky said...
We may infer, but are we right? When referring to beauty, our reference is positive, yes, but does that necessarily mean that beauty is inherently good; good in its essence?I suppose that would pose the question “what is good?"
6:23 PM
Nick said...
To pose the question "what is good?" would be a totally different subject... Could you give an example of when someone could be wrong in thinking that an object is beautiful?
7:07 PM
bucky said...
It appears we are speaking equivocally; the same word with perhaps two definitions?Is it possible that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” is true if ones definition of the word beauty is the same as Webster’s: “The quality or aggregate of qualities in a person or thing that gives pleasure to the senses or pleasurably exalts the mind or spirit: loveliness”? If we were to substitute their use of the word “beauty” for our use of the word “pleasurable”, then this would be correct. On the other hand, if our definition of beauty is “something possessing a quality that demands appreciation, even if it is not granted it”, than their statement would be false. Perhaps the beauty that we consider objective, is just that. If, for instance, we consider beauty to be what God is delighted by, than this has nothing to do with what anyone of us beholds, but if we consider beauty to be what “one” is delighted by, than it doesn’t matter what the object is, it may or may not be beautiful depending upon who is looking at it.
11:42 PM
Nick said...
So which is it? Both definitions sound probable.. and since there can only be one definition, it has to be one or the other. A question that I think that needs to be taken into account is: What about the things that we can learn to find beauty in? If we can find the beauty in something we didn't orignally see, wouldn't that suggest that there is some kind of quality of beauty that the object must have in order to find it? And if there is a certain quality that everything must have in order to be beautiful or to find the beauty in, that would mean that there must be some kind of standard that it must fall on.
8:35 AM
bucky said...
I do think it possible for one word to have multiple definitions (i.e. the word “right” could mean “correct”, “the direction opposite of left”, or even “just” as in “near”, such as in something’s placement being “right around the corner”), but I see what you mean, and what appears to remain unresolved.To approach the real subject that you are referring to (not the definition of the word, but the quality and essence which the word is attempting to define) I would again go back to goodness. No one is good but God, yet He says when looking on His creation, that behold it was good. Not to be too meticulous here, but what exactly is “it”? What if the “it” referred to here is God’s action of creation itself? What if nothing inherently possesses goodness (except God, being Goodness Himself), yet as His creation, we exist for His good purpose, in very fact, His good pleasure? This brings me back to beauty: “the quality or aggregate of qualities in a person or thing that gives pleasure to the senses or pleasurably exalts the mind or spirit: loveliness”-Webster. God taking pleasure in us would seem to me to be the best example of objective beauty that I’ve seen yet (subjective to God in the sense that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, which in this case is Himself, but objective to man since God’s vision is Truth). If this makes any sense, it could perhaps define the standard or quality of beauty: that which God takes pleasure in.The reason we can learn to see the beauty which was once hidden from us, may very well be the same type of learning we undergo when we come to recognize Truth that we had formerly overlooked.Where man's art comes into play here, I don't quite know, but I would ask:what does God take pleasure in?
12:39 AM
Nick said...
So nothing is inherently beautiful, but the act of taking pleasure in something is beautiful(correct me if I misunderstood.)? That would mean that beauty is subjective, because people then can choose what they decide to take pleasure in and what they don't want to take pleasure in. If God is the essence of beauty, then us taking pleasure in Him is not what makes Him beautiful. Because He "is" beautiful. Whether or not we "choose" to take pleasure in Him does not make Him any more or less of what He is. Now where this plays into creation is not quite clear. However, if God made us in His image then we as humans are beautiful. And what He created within those seven days of creation must have beeen "good" (whatever that means! :~P). In something such as art, we are using what God had created within those seven days. This leads back the idea that there is some element of beauty in art, whether or not we instantly see it. However, the question now is: can we as humans distort Gods beauty? At first that question seemed simple, but now there seems to be a lot more to it (as usual)!!
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
Friday, August 26, 2005
God Incarnate
I'm rereading the book, "A Severe Mercy" for the second time and came across an analogy that Sheldon Vanauken gave regarding how Jesus was fully human and fully God at the same time. It is a diaolgue that he and Davy had with a friend of theirs while in Oxford.
"Look, Richard," I said. "This afternoon Davy and I were talking about writing a novel of Oxford with the Studio in it, and us, and everybody. Now, assuming we could do it-"
"Assuming you could do it" said Richard, "I'd buy a copy. Not more than five shillings, though!"
"Listen" I said. "we're talking about the Incarnation. Okay, suppose I write it-its to complicated with two authors-and I put myself in it. There I am, walking down the High, wearing a Jesus tie-in the book. And let's say Imake up a lot of characters, in it, and I, the character, say whatever I would say in the various situations that occur in my plot."
"What abut the Incarnation?" said Richard.
"That's what I'm telling you, stupid fellow," I said with a grin.
"Don't you see? I am the incarnate in my book. I am out here writing it, so I'm like God the Father. But it's really me in the book, too, isn't it? So that's Jesus, the Son, right? The me in the book speaks my words - and yet they are speeches that I've probably never made in real life, not being in those situations. And yet can't you see that it's really me?"
"Um," said Richard. "Yes, right. I see. Go on."
"Well," I said. "All right. I'm out here, being the 'Author of all things' and I'm in the book, taking part in scenes of 'drammer' incarnate in my book. Now, the me in the book: he's all me, isn't he? And he's all character, too isn't he? Like the doctrine: all God and All man. It makes sense doesn't it? And one more thing, suppose the characters run away with the story - authors are always saying that that happens. It might be necessary, whatever I had originally intended, for me to get killed - um, crucified.......anyhow - you see?"
"You win," said Richard. "It does make sense that way. I'll have to thinkg aobut it."
"There something else, though," said Davy. "The other characters- made-up ones. Invented ones. If Van invents characters, they'll all, even the bad ones, have something of Van in them, won't they? So, you see? wea ll have something of God in us - God's spirit - but only the One, Jesus, is God Incarnate."
"Look, Richard," I said. "This afternoon Davy and I were talking about writing a novel of Oxford with the Studio in it, and us, and everybody. Now, assuming we could do it-"
"Assuming you could do it" said Richard, "I'd buy a copy. Not more than five shillings, though!"
"Listen" I said. "we're talking about the Incarnation. Okay, suppose I write it-its to complicated with two authors-and I put myself in it. There I am, walking down the High, wearing a Jesus tie-in the book. And let's say Imake up a lot of characters, in it, and I, the character, say whatever I would say in the various situations that occur in my plot."
"What abut the Incarnation?" said Richard.
"That's what I'm telling you, stupid fellow," I said with a grin.
"Don't you see? I am the incarnate in my book. I am out here writing it, so I'm like God the Father. But it's really me in the book, too, isn't it? So that's Jesus, the Son, right? The me in the book speaks my words - and yet they are speeches that I've probably never made in real life, not being in those situations. And yet can't you see that it's really me?"
"Um," said Richard. "Yes, right. I see. Go on."
"Well," I said. "All right. I'm out here, being the 'Author of all things' and I'm in the book, taking part in scenes of 'drammer' incarnate in my book. Now, the me in the book: he's all me, isn't he? And he's all character, too isn't he? Like the doctrine: all God and All man. It makes sense doesn't it? And one more thing, suppose the characters run away with the story - authors are always saying that that happens. It might be necessary, whatever I had originally intended, for me to get killed - um, crucified.......anyhow - you see?"
"You win," said Richard. "It does make sense that way. I'll have to thinkg aobut it."
"There something else, though," said Davy. "The other characters- made-up ones. Invented ones. If Van invents characters, they'll all, even the bad ones, have something of Van in them, won't they? So, you see? wea ll have something of God in us - God's spirit - but only the One, Jesus, is God Incarnate."
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
A Journey
This question seems to be popping up alot lately, "Am I enjoying the journey, or am I wanting to get to the destination so fast that I can't enjoy and learn from the journey itself?"
Personally I'm still trying to figure out what I am. However, I do believe that we do sometimes get so caught in wanting to reach the destination that we forget about the journey. Especially as a Christian I wonder why God even makes us endure the journey of life. It is so complicated and so hazy at times that I just long to be in heaven where everything will be cleared. I wouldn't have to worry about the everyday trials that we face consistently.
Its during those times when I wonder, "Why am I here, when I want to be there? Why can't I grow up faster?" But God has a divine purpose for everything.
The Bible says that God put eternity into our hearts. I believe He did that so that we would search out eternity. Not to just confirm our own preconceived opinions but rather to grow and to be willingly to hold our opinions loosely. To be willing to change your opinion is part of the journey. When you realize that you are wrong and then can change what you orignally believed is probably one of the hardest things to do. This is one part of the journey that I know I miss out on. I get so caught in my own opinions sometimes that I wrap a blind fold around my own eyes.
Rationality can also hinder us from truly enjoying the journey. Wanting everything to be rational will only lead to disappointment. As Chesterson said, its the most rational people that are most prone to ending up in a mental hospital. Not being willing to have faith the size of a mustard seed can sometimes keep us from enjoying the very thing that God has set before us.
The last question is, "Am I making the most of where I am?" With what God has given me, am I being a good steward?
These are just questions that I have been pondering lately and something that is worth thinking about.
Personally I'm still trying to figure out what I am. However, I do believe that we do sometimes get so caught in wanting to reach the destination that we forget about the journey. Especially as a Christian I wonder why God even makes us endure the journey of life. It is so complicated and so hazy at times that I just long to be in heaven where everything will be cleared. I wouldn't have to worry about the everyday trials that we face consistently.
Its during those times when I wonder, "Why am I here, when I want to be there? Why can't I grow up faster?" But God has a divine purpose for everything.
The Bible says that God put eternity into our hearts. I believe He did that so that we would search out eternity. Not to just confirm our own preconceived opinions but rather to grow and to be willingly to hold our opinions loosely. To be willing to change your opinion is part of the journey. When you realize that you are wrong and then can change what you orignally believed is probably one of the hardest things to do. This is one part of the journey that I know I miss out on. I get so caught in my own opinions sometimes that I wrap a blind fold around my own eyes.
Rationality can also hinder us from truly enjoying the journey. Wanting everything to be rational will only lead to disappointment. As Chesterson said, its the most rational people that are most prone to ending up in a mental hospital. Not being willing to have faith the size of a mustard seed can sometimes keep us from enjoying the very thing that God has set before us.
The last question is, "Am I making the most of where I am?" With what God has given me, am I being a good steward?
These are just questions that I have been pondering lately and something that is worth thinking about.
Friday, August 05, 2005
Two kinds of will
A friend and I came to an agreement the other day that there are two kinds of will. There is the will which is the action and the will which is the intention.
To have the will to do something could merely mean that you have the intention of accomplishing whatever it is you want to do. Whether or not you accomplish it is irrelavent. To will your self to accomplish something means you finish whatever it was you set out to do whether or not you feel like it.
This conversation was brought about by a definition I heard for the word courage: "To will yourself to do what ought to be done in the face of opposition."
After discussing this, we came to the conclusion that the will used in the definition is implying an action. You cannnot merely intend on doing something and be considered courageous. But then what does it mean to be courageous?
That was the main topic for the week at the Torrey camp. Needless to say we never came to a good enough definition of the word, however we had some excellent dialogue about it!!
To have the will to do something could merely mean that you have the intention of accomplishing whatever it is you want to do. Whether or not you accomplish it is irrelavent. To will your self to accomplish something means you finish whatever it was you set out to do whether or not you feel like it.
This conversation was brought about by a definition I heard for the word courage: "To will yourself to do what ought to be done in the face of opposition."
After discussing this, we came to the conclusion that the will used in the definition is implying an action. You cannnot merely intend on doing something and be considered courageous. But then what does it mean to be courageous?
That was the main topic for the week at the Torrey camp. Needless to say we never came to a good enough definition of the word, however we had some excellent dialogue about it!!
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
In-sane...?
I'm in the midst of reading a book by G.K. Chesterson called "Orthodoxy." It is a book talking about why he (Chesterson) chose Christianity and what led to his conversion. So far I'm only a chapter and a half way through the book. The first chapter talked about people who are in-sane and those most prone to someday go in-sane.
He mentions that people who are most prone to go in-sane are those who believe that everything must be worked out logically and/or reasonably. He backs this up by saying that not everything can be explained through science or pure logic. Because of this, those who depend soley on logic and reason will in the end go mad! Even some of the greatest thinkers in the world such as Socrates, or Aristotle didn't figure everything out!! They believe that if it can not be figured out logically then it is either not true or not worth talking about. However, knowing that there is something out there that they can not explain, will gradually begin to nag at them.
By adopting this type of thinking, they tend to live in this tiny universe where anything unexplainable is not allowed in. This eventually leads to the hospital for the insane.
The book has been great so far! I hope it only gets better from here.
He mentions that people who are most prone to go in-sane are those who believe that everything must be worked out logically and/or reasonably. He backs this up by saying that not everything can be explained through science or pure logic. Because of this, those who depend soley on logic and reason will in the end go mad! Even some of the greatest thinkers in the world such as Socrates, or Aristotle didn't figure everything out!! They believe that if it can not be figured out logically then it is either not true or not worth talking about. However, knowing that there is something out there that they can not explain, will gradually begin to nag at them.
By adopting this type of thinking, they tend to live in this tiny universe where anything unexplainable is not allowed in. This eventually leads to the hospital for the insane.
The book has been great so far! I hope it only gets better from here.
Beauty
Lately my Dad and I have been discussing whether or not beauty is objective or subjective. I tend to take the stance that beauty is objective and my Dad believes it is subjective.
When you say that something is beautiful, to me, it seems that you have to be comparing it to a certain standard. For an object to be beautiful, there must be a standard of beauty that something must fall under, in order for it to be beautiful. The reason I believe something may seem more beautiful than another comes down to preference. A lot of times the reason something may seem more beautiful than another is sometimes due to the knowledge you have of it, or you can relate to it in one way or another. An example that first comes to mind is this: to most guys, all girls are beautiful. However, what may draw a guy to a certain girl may be the fact that he can relate to her better than he could to someone else. They have more in common with each other and therefore are more attracted to each other. Thus making her seem more beautiful than any other girl who he may come in contact with.
As far as having more knowledge of an object, I'll use the example of me going to the Getty Museum. Like I said in the previous post, going to the Getty did not orginally sound exciting. Even during the first half hour or so of being there, it was not very exciting. However, after I began to converse with others about certain paintings, and learned more and more historical facts about the paintings, they became even more interesting. I began to see the beauty in them, because I had a better appreciation for them. Which seems to me that if you can teach yourself to find beauty in things that you did not orignally see but others did, then there must be some kind of attribute that they all have in common. Thus leading to a standard of beauty.
My Dad's arguement is this: If I find one thing beautiful but he does not, then to him it is not beautiful. He also raises the question, if there is a standard of beauty and God set it, where in the Bible does he say, "this is beautiful and this is not?" He also asks, "what about people who find war beautiful?" To him, just because I find something beautiful, doesn't mean that he finds it beautiful as well.
So as you can see, my reasoning for why I think beauty is objective, does not sufficently answer his questions. While I continue to search for better questions and answers, I'll be sure to keep the site updated!!
When you say that something is beautiful, to me, it seems that you have to be comparing it to a certain standard. For an object to be beautiful, there must be a standard of beauty that something must fall under, in order for it to be beautiful. The reason I believe something may seem more beautiful than another comes down to preference. A lot of times the reason something may seem more beautiful than another is sometimes due to the knowledge you have of it, or you can relate to it in one way or another. An example that first comes to mind is this: to most guys, all girls are beautiful. However, what may draw a guy to a certain girl may be the fact that he can relate to her better than he could to someone else. They have more in common with each other and therefore are more attracted to each other. Thus making her seem more beautiful than any other girl who he may come in contact with.
As far as having more knowledge of an object, I'll use the example of me going to the Getty Museum. Like I said in the previous post, going to the Getty did not orginally sound exciting. Even during the first half hour or so of being there, it was not very exciting. However, after I began to converse with others about certain paintings, and learned more and more historical facts about the paintings, they became even more interesting. I began to see the beauty in them, because I had a better appreciation for them. Which seems to me that if you can teach yourself to find beauty in things that you did not orignally see but others did, then there must be some kind of attribute that they all have in common. Thus leading to a standard of beauty.
My Dad's arguement is this: If I find one thing beautiful but he does not, then to him it is not beautiful. He also raises the question, if there is a standard of beauty and God set it, where in the Bible does he say, "this is beautiful and this is not?" He also asks, "what about people who find war beautiful?" To him, just because I find something beautiful, doesn't mean that he finds it beautiful as well.
So as you can see, my reasoning for why I think beauty is objective, does not sufficently answer his questions. While I continue to search for better questions and answers, I'll be sure to keep the site updated!!
Monday, August 01, 2005
Torrey Academy
Last week I went to the Torrey academy summer camp. It was probably the most amazing summer camp I have ever been too!! The Torrey Honors program at Biola University is a program that gets its students to read the classic books and then discuss them. It is a way of getting people to think for themselves, and to always question everything. As I learned while I was up there, when engaged in dialogue, its not about the answers its about the questions. The process of how one comes to a conclusion is more important than the conclusion its-self.
We had many lecturers (some lasting over 3 hours) about many different yet similar subjects. One of the lecturers that stuck out to me the most was one (of the many he gave) given by Dr. Reynolds, regarding how society is so caught up in instant-gratification. I'll try to summarize to the best of my ability.....
Our culture has lost sight of the things that are worth enjoying. Things such as having meaningful dialogue, reading great books (Plato, Aristotle, G.K. Chesterson etc.), listening to classical music. He said the reason for this, was due to our instant gratification. Because to truly enjoy things of this nature takes work. It often takes a lot more work than people are willing to do. If we don't receive enjoyment immediately, then its not worth the work. Another great example of our laziness is Art.
While at the camp one of the field trips we took was to the Getty Museum. I'll admit that going to look at art painted by some dead guys did not sound very exciting at first. However, after getting there, and discussing some of the art I found that it was very enjoyable. At one point there were about seven of us standing around one piece of art work by Rembrandt for over 30minutes!! I received so much insight and gained so much appreciation for that work of art that I was sad when it was time to leave. After having that experience I realized how much more enjoyable art could be. It was so much more satisfying than it would have been if I were to have stayed home and played Nintendo or something of that nature.
This is only one example of that real joy that is worth enjoying. So often we decide to substitute lesser joys for the real thing because they gratify us faster than a Rembrandt painting. We think that if we can just find more and more things to substitute it with, then in the end we'll be just as satisfied. On the contrary, we will be even more miserable. This is the reason why people don't like to learn or educate themselves either. It takes work!! But when one truly sees the joy of learning, the more he'll find it easier to enjoy things such as paintings, or great books. He'll have more of an appreciation for those things.
The hard question to answer now is, how does one bring our culture or our society to see that the things worth enjoying, are the things which take the most work? It is a question that has been circulating since the time of Plato and Socrates. I only hope that someday I can play a small part in giving people that glimpse of what experiencing true joy is. The Torrey Academy truly gave me the split second glimpse of what I was missing out on!!
We had many lecturers (some lasting over 3 hours) about many different yet similar subjects. One of the lecturers that stuck out to me the most was one (of the many he gave) given by Dr. Reynolds, regarding how society is so caught up in instant-gratification. I'll try to summarize to the best of my ability.....
Our culture has lost sight of the things that are worth enjoying. Things such as having meaningful dialogue, reading great books (Plato, Aristotle, G.K. Chesterson etc.), listening to classical music. He said the reason for this, was due to our instant gratification. Because to truly enjoy things of this nature takes work. It often takes a lot more work than people are willing to do. If we don't receive enjoyment immediately, then its not worth the work. Another great example of our laziness is Art.
While at the camp one of the field trips we took was to the Getty Museum. I'll admit that going to look at art painted by some dead guys did not sound very exciting at first. However, after getting there, and discussing some of the art I found that it was very enjoyable. At one point there were about seven of us standing around one piece of art work by Rembrandt for over 30minutes!! I received so much insight and gained so much appreciation for that work of art that I was sad when it was time to leave. After having that experience I realized how much more enjoyable art could be. It was so much more satisfying than it would have been if I were to have stayed home and played Nintendo or something of that nature.
This is only one example of that real joy that is worth enjoying. So often we decide to substitute lesser joys for the real thing because they gratify us faster than a Rembrandt painting. We think that if we can just find more and more things to substitute it with, then in the end we'll be just as satisfied. On the contrary, we will be even more miserable. This is the reason why people don't like to learn or educate themselves either. It takes work!! But when one truly sees the joy of learning, the more he'll find it easier to enjoy things such as paintings, or great books. He'll have more of an appreciation for those things.
The hard question to answer now is, how does one bring our culture or our society to see that the things worth enjoying, are the things which take the most work? It is a question that has been circulating since the time of Plato and Socrates. I only hope that someday I can play a small part in giving people that glimpse of what experiencing true joy is. The Torrey Academy truly gave me the split second glimpse of what I was missing out on!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
