We have previously discussed occult powers, such as gravity, in our last post, and noted that postulating occult powers is necessary for articulating the unity (and the true substance) of the physical world. Kinetics requires the hidden power of gravity, or perhaps the all-penetrating field of space-time to explain mechanics. Obviously, we do not observe gravity directly, or distortions in the space-time continuum directly, we observe these hidden forces through their effects on observables.
However, we must be prepared to make a distinction between occult powers, powers such as gravity and powers such as beauty, based on the relationship of the power to its effects. The operations of gravity can be defined solely in terms of its effects on matter, and for this reason, physics is a predictive science. In contrast, the operations of beauty cannot be defined solely in terms of its effects on matter. As a result, the discipline of aesthetics is not a predictive science, but a series of arguments. Is beauty solely in the eyes of the beholder? Is beauty the ideology of consumer capitalism? Is aesthetics purely nonsensical? Should there be aesthetics if beauty is undefinable?
While I would take the position that the Beautiful is undefinable, and all attempts to define the Beautiful will fail, I think the undefinable nature of Beauty tells us something important about Beauty, that is, the Beautiful is ontologically independent from the material world. Because beauty cannot be defined by its material effects, beauty as a power cannot be material. Nor can beauty be subjective, because if there were no general agreements on judgments of beauty, then we could not talk about beauty. Our sense of beauty must be derived from shared norms of judgment, and those norms must be inter-subjective. If they were not, I would not know what you mean if you said the painting was beautiful (even if I disagreed).
We are left with an inter-subjectively perceived power which operates on the material world, but which cannot be defined in terms of the material world. I think we can see that the consequence is that the Beautiful exists in ontological independence from the material world. For example, if there were no material world, there could be no gravity, but if there were no material world, there would still be Beauty.
For similar reasons, I must ultimately reject the correspondence theory of truth, that the truth of a proposition is defined by its correspondence with "reality". This theory presupposes a divide between language and an empirical world, one which cannot be maintained, as language is an empirical phenomenon contained within the empirical world. Second, this theory contends that truth consists of a relationship between a proposition and the empirical world. Truth cannot be defined in terms of the material world (for example, truths in mathematics), and therefore Truth is ontologically independent of the material world. If the world, and language, and people had never been created, the Truth would still exist. The idea of a correspondence between a proposition and an empirical state of affairs may provide intelligibility within a limited context, such as considering the findings of natural scientists, but it does not describe even the full use of the concept of truth or its undefinable essence.
This leads me to considerations on a philosophical method. To the extent that contemporary philosophy concerns itself with attempts to define the True, the Good, the Beautiful, it confuses the creature with the Creator. Only a creature can be defined, and only to the extent that a creature is purely material. It is our duty to engage in anti-philosophy to combat this error. We can distinguish between two types of occult powers: worldly, which are definable, and heavenly which are ultimately undefinable. We can understand that modern philosophy and the modern philosophical method is predicated on an intellectual bondage to worldly occult powers. It either denies the obvious, the influence of Heavenly Powers, or it tries to define the Heavenly Powers in terms derived from Worldly Powers. Our method, consistent with Ludwig Wittgenstein, is to free the Soul from its bondage, that is to say it is therapeutic. The point is to see clearly our bondage, and to realize that we cannot, through reason alone, free ourselves from our captivity. Only what is above us can free us.
At the same time, there is another possible philosophical method, one which has been pushed out in the name of progress, namely, contemplation. Rather than define the beautiful, we can come to know the Beautiful by contemplation of beautiful things. Because the beautiful is ontologically independent of the physical world, likewise our capacity to contemplate beauty is also independent of the physical world. Through contemplation, we move from the physical dimension, of a fragmentation of subject and object, to the realm of intellection, in which there is a unity of subject and object, within the idea which is both within the subject and the object, and before the subject and the object and above both the subject and the object. Rather than the production of definitions, this method yields flashes of insight into the true nature of things. The mind is not freed by ratiocination, but can only be freed through Revelation.
No comments:
Post a Comment