“Classical education must begin by reestablishing that Beauty is an objective reality.”
Well said. At the same time, there will always be somebody who cannot objectively see the sublime in the waterfall. People can have idiosyncratic perceptions that are unshakeable. That doesn’t negate the point, any more than having glaucoma and blurred vision negate the objective beauty of a sunset, yet it does demand a certain patience. Some people just won’t “see” the beauty.
More problematic, of course, are those who actually demand that we elevate the subjective glaucoma and declare that the blur is the beauty.
An excellent point, I'd love to see that developed more. What do we do, if anything, during that period of "patience"? Is there something we can do to "cure" the glaucoma?
To some extent, I think patience itself is a major part of the cure. A lifetime of work. Still, in being patient, I don’t think the way forward is to then elevate idiosyncratic subjectivity, or to abandon objectivity.
Another part of the “cure” perhaps rests in getting a proper balance of the objective and subjective in our understanding of beauty (and of things more generally). But the balance here is not just some sort of technical principle, but, in my view, a part of reality. God is objective; but God has subjectivity within God (for instance, the Three Persons do not see the same way). If this is how absolute reality works, then maybe it’s the appropriate frame for understanding our local reality too.
Practically, this might mean encouraging people to struggle to get out of their habitual way of seeing things, to not always trust it because it feels natural or familiar, and to cultivate educational experiences that can get them into a better objective-subjective balance.
Strictly speaking, one doesn’t have to believe in God to do all this, but without some sense of an absolute/transcendent Reality, our instinct will be to go inward and emphasize the subjective too heavily.
Thank you for taking the time to develop that some more. I very much appreciate your point that the balance is not a technical principle but a part of reality. I've seen the argument from both sides myself. On the one hand, beauty is merely subjective, in the eye of the beholder. On the other than, beauty is only objective and that we have different tastes should be ignored. But, how do we cultivate our tastes (and why) if they do not matter? Of course they matter!
“The debunkers don't want us making that connection. They debunk by separating opinion from fact. Once the debunkers make this distinction, their next step is lead us to subtly change how we value these statements. The debunked person can now dismiss opinions as mere personal judgments. Waterfalls cannot be sublime, they can only be personally judged as sublime. The debunked no longer see values of beauty or goodness in objects.”
In this quote you adequately describe my entire university experience. I wasn’t well equipped enough at that time to truly rebut this kind of thinking and too easily gave into this kind of thinking. My trying to live for Christ at the time, thankfully, gave me some kind of defense but it could have been stronger.
Really loved this short analysis and making it a point to get my hands on The Abolition of Man as I’ve never read it. But this is not the first time I’ve seen it discussed and know that I need to dive in.
Wonderful to discover that you will share your writing on Substack. I greatly appreciate the work of the CiRCE Institute and look forward to following you along here.
Thank you for this piece. "Beauty is subjective" is a statement which needs a foundation. Why is it a true statement? What is its standard? What is the experience of a person with a different standard, or no standard?
“Classical education must begin by reestablishing that Beauty is an objective reality.”
Well said. At the same time, there will always be somebody who cannot objectively see the sublime in the waterfall. People can have idiosyncratic perceptions that are unshakeable. That doesn’t negate the point, any more than having glaucoma and blurred vision negate the objective beauty of a sunset, yet it does demand a certain patience. Some people just won’t “see” the beauty.
More problematic, of course, are those who actually demand that we elevate the subjective glaucoma and declare that the blur is the beauty.
An excellent point, I'd love to see that developed more. What do we do, if anything, during that period of "patience"? Is there something we can do to "cure" the glaucoma?
To some extent, I think patience itself is a major part of the cure. A lifetime of work. Still, in being patient, I don’t think the way forward is to then elevate idiosyncratic subjectivity, or to abandon objectivity.
Another part of the “cure” perhaps rests in getting a proper balance of the objective and subjective in our understanding of beauty (and of things more generally). But the balance here is not just some sort of technical principle, but, in my view, a part of reality. God is objective; but God has subjectivity within God (for instance, the Three Persons do not see the same way). If this is how absolute reality works, then maybe it’s the appropriate frame for understanding our local reality too.
Practically, this might mean encouraging people to struggle to get out of their habitual way of seeing things, to not always trust it because it feels natural or familiar, and to cultivate educational experiences that can get them into a better objective-subjective balance.
Strictly speaking, one doesn’t have to believe in God to do all this, but without some sense of an absolute/transcendent Reality, our instinct will be to go inward and emphasize the subjective too heavily.
Thank you for taking the time to develop that some more. I very much appreciate your point that the balance is not a technical principle but a part of reality. I've seen the argument from both sides myself. On the one hand, beauty is merely subjective, in the eye of the beholder. On the other than, beauty is only objective and that we have different tastes should be ignored. But, how do we cultivate our tastes (and why) if they do not matter? Of course they matter!
This is one of the most helpful commentaries I’ve read on Abolition of Man! 😊
Thank you! It's one of my favorite books. I read it at least every other year! :)
“The debunkers don't want us making that connection. They debunk by separating opinion from fact. Once the debunkers make this distinction, their next step is lead us to subtly change how we value these statements. The debunked person can now dismiss opinions as mere personal judgments. Waterfalls cannot be sublime, they can only be personally judged as sublime. The debunked no longer see values of beauty or goodness in objects.”
In this quote you adequately describe my entire university experience. I wasn’t well equipped enough at that time to truly rebut this kind of thinking and too easily gave into this kind of thinking. My trying to live for Christ at the time, thankfully, gave me some kind of defense but it could have been stronger.
Really loved this short analysis and making it a point to get my hands on The Abolition of Man as I’ve never read it. But this is not the first time I’ve seen it discussed and know that I need to dive in.
Looking forward to your time on Substack.
This was so good Matthew. As a writer of stories, it’s something to seriously think about.
Thank you!
Wonderful to discover that you will share your writing on Substack. I greatly appreciate the work of the CiRCE Institute and look forward to following you along here.
Thank you for this piece. "Beauty is subjective" is a statement which needs a foundation. Why is it a true statement? What is its standard? What is the experience of a person with a different standard, or no standard?