the beauty and ethics

Somewhere, I imagine that in the case of the sociologists, through the influence of Max Weber, we decided that the truth, the good and the beautiful are different things and that each one is going by your side. And, entering into the subject that interests us, the beauty and the good are -at least – clearly separate worlds.

But I think that, in reality, that does not correspond to the experience of beauty. In particular, to dissociate the beauty of the well leads us, in the end, not to give importance to the beauty.

Let us remember the famous dictum of Adorno on the impossibility of writing poetry after Auschwitz. Or consider the trend to take the beauty as an analogue to the idea of Marx’s ” opium of the people. In both cases, the issue is that the aesthetic aspects of us diverted from what’s important, and specifically aspects are ethically relevant. The beauty we adormecería ultimately (and the only ethical capacity of art would be the ability to shake us in that sense).

In this regard, perhaps it would be good to say that when we are talking about beauty, we are talking about beauty. We are not talking about only (although we’re not excluding) that which is pleasing or pleasant. The beauty goes beyond what’s nice, but nor would they underrate the pleasure.

The above has its importance, because I think becomes somewhat more plausible the central idea, so I think that beauty has aesthetic importance. Because beauty is not something that acceptable to the world, something that just what you re nice-and we may see as ‘good’ as that ethically it is not. When you actually feel the beauty, the experience is, in truth, intolerable. Because nothing in the world gives the size of what is truly beautiful.

To put it in words quite crude: we do Not deserve to Bach. The world that is offered to us in this music (and the reader can think of any music that you have produced that effect) is incomparably better than the one we live in. And this is not only valid for, using the old terminology of the EIGHTEENTH century, what has that to do with the sublime, but also with the simply plancentero. To abuse of images that are not quite correct, nor do we deserve to Bocherini for the case. Things that are beautiful do not justify the world, what they do is show us what there is beyond it.

In that sense, the beauty itself has an importance that is purely ethical: to show us a world beyond the miseries which we live. And on the other, by the fact that indeed, the beauty exists, a world which one can aspire, or at least that one you can zoom in.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Posts

Begin typing your search above and press enter to search. Press ESC to cancel.

Back To Top