Messi is beautiful with the ball, which is a joy to watch as a sum of everything that happened up to that moment. Natural talent, hard work, chance of circumstances for his development, and not being afraid of the moment.
In sports there seems to be a kind of providence, that I think comes from the inability to measure willpower and luck (sum of everyone’s action).
What of potential for beauty? Is there such a thing?
I think that moral actions can lead to physical representations of the beautiful.
Maks, any potential for beauty, I would think, resides in human beings' ability to think of, and eventually create beautiful things.
As for moral actions, they can certainly be described as beautiful, so long as we don't confuse that sense of beauty for the most standard, purely aesthetic one.
This is how I understand it right now. Beauty is a pragmatic experience, harmony in proper function. Function whether good or not determined by the individual and not providence. (Im having a hard time to let go of providence)
So there is alot of things in the world that strike an awe but for lack of understanding are called beautiful?
As a starting point that I don’t know what beauty means yes! Concept which I took for granted till trying to understand your essay.
I get the part of attributing beauty to the base physical appearances, which I think happens from lack of control for understanding how my brain prefers to create patterns. And that it is a human concept independent of providence - that is to say that if providence does exist beauty should not be attributed to it.
With that 6 hour video of Stoicon on the topic should be more engaging. Thank you!
Maks, awe is not the same thing as beauty. Beautiful things may certainly cause awe, but so can terrifying things. Either way, both of those are human judgments, not inherent in the things themselves. Does that help?
I still think you're wrong about what Beauty is. But we argued about that before. I do appreciate that the Stoic notion of an intelligent design was wrong. I love reading your philosophical essays. But I wouldn't want to learn art or music in your class.
Ciao, Massimo. I agree that there is no link between physical and moral beauty, but wouldn't be Stoic to understand that if our actions are beauty we are also (not-physically) beauty? If our action are according to our nature, therefore we are beauty.
Victor, yes, but that relies on two very different conceptions of beauty. The problem is that by using the same word, "beauty," for moral as well as for physical-aesthetic qualities, people are likely to confuse the two. So long as we don't take one kind of beauty as indicator of the other, we're fine.
Hi Massimo! I'm going to play devil's advocate to your devil's advocate:
1. Did the Stoics actually equate ethical and aesthetic value? Is there a passage to that effect?
2. Regarding the "attractiveness halo effect," I think the Stoics do incorporate such a thing. Both Chrysippus and Epictetus talk about the so-called "persuasiveness of things" (αἱ τῶν πραγμάτων πιθανότητες), a persuasiveness which can lure us astray. Since the lure of pleasure falls in there, I wouldn't be surprised if physical beauty fell under that category, too. See the passages collected together in Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta (SVF) III.228–236. E.g. the temptations presented by an beautifiul man or woman in Epictetus, Discourse, II.18.15-18. Likewise, gold is beautiful (καλόν, Epictetus, Discourse, I.1.5) but we should not be seduced by the "persuasiveness of things" into concluding that physical beauty is a genuine good.
Hi Brian, the relevant passages are cited in the book by Čelkytė. She makes what seems to me a compelling case.
Regarding the attractiveness halo effect, yes, you are correct, Epictetus is pretty explicit about that. (Frankly, I consider some examples of modern research in psychology to be cases of the elucidation of the obvious... But don't tell my colleagues in the Psych Department!)
More generally, though, I just wanted to warn people *not* to make that sort of equation between beauty and truth that even some modern scientists make, and for which they have been chastised by colleagues like Baggott and Hossenfelder.
Hej Massimo, Thank you so much for this. As so often, you put order and sense into the ideas that are whirling round in my head. To be honest, I couldn't face joining Stoicon this year because the theme seemed too whacky. I know! I know! I should not have been prejudiced and should instead have been open minded, but it seemed to me to be a contrived diversion from what is really important in practicing Stoicism and the time I have left of life is precious.
Patricia, glad you liked the essay! Frankly, I have a distaste for themed conferences. As you say, they tend to be contrived, as every speaker has to come up with something relevant to the theme while at the same time wanting to talk about her/his own things. Overall I think Stoicon '23 came off nicely, but I'm afraid this is going to be a trend that will not always deliver good results.
First off, a psychiatrist isn't the sort of expert I'd go to when it comes to understanding the deep nature of reality. My money is on my friends in the physics department.
Second, he attempts to distance himself from the scientific revolution and the Enlightenment. Really bad move, in my book.
Third, to say that "the western world," i.e., a highly diverse set of societies, has oscillated between left- and right-hemisphere makes little sense. Neuroscience doesn't scale up to sociology in that kind of straightforward fashion.
Lastly, the notion that consciousness is ontologically fundamental (i.e., panpsychism) has no foundation in modern science. Which I guess is why he has to start by rejecting modern science.
As for being a Buddhist-Taoist-Stoic, go for it! The three have quite a bit in common in terms of ethics. But you may have to choose when it comes to metaphysics...
Messi is beautiful with the ball, which is a joy to watch as a sum of everything that happened up to that moment. Natural talent, hard work, chance of circumstances for his development, and not being afraid of the moment.
In sports there seems to be a kind of providence, that I think comes from the inability to measure willpower and luck (sum of everyone’s action).
What of potential for beauty? Is there such a thing?
I think that moral actions can lead to physical representations of the beautiful.
Maks, any potential for beauty, I would think, resides in human beings' ability to think of, and eventually create beautiful things.
As for moral actions, they can certainly be described as beautiful, so long as we don't confuse that sense of beauty for the most standard, purely aesthetic one.
Ok, please tell me if Im wrong Massimo.
This is how I understand it right now. Beauty is a pragmatic experience, harmony in proper function. Function whether good or not determined by the individual and not providence. (Im having a hard time to let go of providence)
So there is alot of things in the world that strike an awe but for lack of understanding are called beautiful?
As a starting point that I don’t know what beauty means yes! Concept which I took for granted till trying to understand your essay.
I get the part of attributing beauty to the base physical appearances, which I think happens from lack of control for understanding how my brain prefers to create patterns. And that it is a human concept independent of providence - that is to say that if providence does exist beauty should not be attributed to it.
With that 6 hour video of Stoicon on the topic should be more engaging. Thank you!
Maks, awe is not the same thing as beauty. Beautiful things may certainly cause awe, but so can terrifying things. Either way, both of those are human judgments, not inherent in the things themselves. Does that help?
I still think you're wrong about what Beauty is. But we argued about that before. I do appreciate that the Stoic notion of an intelligent design was wrong. I love reading your philosophical essays. But I wouldn't want to learn art or music in your class.
Lucky for you, I don't teach art or music classes! 😆
Thanks 😊
Ciao, Massimo. I agree that there is no link between physical and moral beauty, but wouldn't be Stoic to understand that if our actions are beauty we are also (not-physically) beauty? If our action are according to our nature, therefore we are beauty.
Victor, yes, but that relies on two very different conceptions of beauty. The problem is that by using the same word, "beauty," for moral as well as for physical-aesthetic qualities, people are likely to confuse the two. So long as we don't take one kind of beauty as indicator of the other, we're fine.
Hi Massimo! I'm going to play devil's advocate to your devil's advocate:
1. Did the Stoics actually equate ethical and aesthetic value? Is there a passage to that effect?
2. Regarding the "attractiveness halo effect," I think the Stoics do incorporate such a thing. Both Chrysippus and Epictetus talk about the so-called "persuasiveness of things" (αἱ τῶν πραγμάτων πιθανότητες), a persuasiveness which can lure us astray. Since the lure of pleasure falls in there, I wouldn't be surprised if physical beauty fell under that category, too. See the passages collected together in Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta (SVF) III.228–236. E.g. the temptations presented by an beautifiul man or woman in Epictetus, Discourse, II.18.15-18. Likewise, gold is beautiful (καλόν, Epictetus, Discourse, I.1.5) but we should not be seduced by the "persuasiveness of things" into concluding that physical beauty is a genuine good.
Brian J.
Hi Brian, the relevant passages are cited in the book by Čelkytė. She makes what seems to me a compelling case.
Regarding the attractiveness halo effect, yes, you are correct, Epictetus is pretty explicit about that. (Frankly, I consider some examples of modern research in psychology to be cases of the elucidation of the obvious... But don't tell my colleagues in the Psych Department!)
More generally, though, I just wanted to warn people *not* to make that sort of equation between beauty and truth that even some modern scientists make, and for which they have been chastised by colleagues like Baggott and Hossenfelder.
That is a great reply! As always, Massimo, you are skilled in (Stoic!) dialectic.
Much appreciated, my friend!
Hej Massimo, Thank you so much for this. As so often, you put order and sense into the ideas that are whirling round in my head. To be honest, I couldn't face joining Stoicon this year because the theme seemed too whacky. I know! I know! I should not have been prejudiced and should instead have been open minded, but it seemed to me to be a contrived diversion from what is really important in practicing Stoicism and the time I have left of life is precious.
Patricia, glad you liked the essay! Frankly, I have a distaste for themed conferences. As you say, they tend to be contrived, as every speaker has to come up with something relevant to the theme while at the same time wanting to talk about her/his own things. Overall I think Stoicon '23 came off nicely, but I'm afraid this is going to be a trend that will not always deliver good results.
I do feel a bit less daft when I read your work. Thank you for your thoughtful and inspiring views.
Very much appreciated!
G’day
“But the modern scientific worldview does not appear to be compatible with the Stoic notion of a living cosmos.”
So you think Iain McGilchrist (The Matter With Things) has got it wrongly? As well as parts of Buddhism?
To add to the confusion: I see myself as a Buddhist / Taoist / Stoic (not always in that order) 😀.
Yup, I'm afraid I do. On multiple levels.
First off, a psychiatrist isn't the sort of expert I'd go to when it comes to understanding the deep nature of reality. My money is on my friends in the physics department.
Second, he attempts to distance himself from the scientific revolution and the Enlightenment. Really bad move, in my book.
Third, to say that "the western world," i.e., a highly diverse set of societies, has oscillated between left- and right-hemisphere makes little sense. Neuroscience doesn't scale up to sociology in that kind of straightforward fashion.
Lastly, the notion that consciousness is ontologically fundamental (i.e., panpsychism) has no foundation in modern science. Which I guess is why he has to start by rejecting modern science.
As for being a Buddhist-Taoist-Stoic, go for it! The three have quite a bit in common in terms of ethics. But you may have to choose when it comes to metaphysics...
Thanks for that.
‘May have to choose’ — Oh, I’ve been doing that since the early ‘70s when completing an astronomy + biology major at Amherst College.
It just keeps getting more interesting each time around.
The ideas of beauty being different for different species made me think of The Twilight Zone episode 42 (1960), The Eye of The Beholder. Great episode
Nice! I'll check it out!
It does, doesn't it?