Monday, February 21, 2011

The Words of Edwards

                Today, to sort of begin and end Jonathan Edwards, I want to go over several key terms Edwards uses when talking about beauty; what those terms mean to Edwards; and then my take on them, and on the concept Edwards is driving at.
                First, much as I did in Starting on Beauty, Edwards defines two types of beauty: primary beauty and secondary beauty. For Edwards, secondary beauty is form and harmony – it is superficial beauty. It is this beauty which the world got hung up on, and that Kant argued against in his endorsement of the sublime. The problem with secondary beauty is that it is subjective; some people see beauty in certain forms that other people do not. It is because of this subjectivity of beauty that Kant argues it is not the most important thing. What Kant and many others missed – and is especially prevalent in the postmodern movement, in areas outside of beauty as well – is the fact that the idea of beauty still exists, no matter what different people’s interpretation of it is. Roland Delattre, in his essay concerning Jonathan Edwards titled Aesthetics and Ethics, says: “Everywhere in the universe, and not only among human beings, there is evidence of a deep hunger for beauty.” What this should have pointed out to Kant and many others is, despite differing viewpoints of what exactly beauty was, the concept and the desire still exists; therefore, it should stand to reason, that beauty is something which exists, something which people can react to. But in staring at the trees, they have missed the forest.
                Second, Edwards speaks of primary beauty: beauty which is consent of being to being. For Edwards, as for the Bible and for anyone who claims to believe the Bible, everyone and everything springs from God. I spoke of this at length in my last post. So this primary beauty stems from God; when we see beauty in another or in creation, it is agreeing with God in the consent of His being to the other being. I should say, true beauty is this; when we cut God from the picture, it is a selfish and subjective perception of beauty, and likely is superficial. This is why so much of what we perceive as beauty today is so damaging to individuals; when we say a man or woman is beautiful, and we are using subjective, fleshly measurements to say so – we lay on pride and haughtiness to the individual being admired, and lust upon ourselves because the beauty is for our benefit only. Then, those who are not subjectively beautiful are discarded as of no use for our enjoyment, unless there is some cheap carnal enjoyment to steal from them. A person does not have to be beautiful if they are useful, after all; and, inversely, if they are beautiful they do not need to be of any other use. So humanity is enslaved by this subjective, selfish beauty. But when beauty comes from God, both in the observer and the subject, then God is given glory and the sinfulness and selfishness of man does not creep in. The purpose, then, of secondary beauty is to point us to primary beauty, which points us to God.
                So what about this cordial consent? I spoke of it much in my last post, but let me include it here for comprehensiveness’ sake. Consent of God is His saying “yes” to our existence, and of us responding “yes” to His “yes.” This consent is moment by moment; God does not say “yes” at our birth and leave it be. Why does the Law command: “You shall not murder?” Because we are claiming lordship over God’s consent to another being; we are saying “no” when God is still saying “yes.” Any time we say “no” to God – whether in our own lives or in the life of another – we are in sin, and I spoke of that at length in my last post as well.
                Edwards also speaks of the ethics of beauty. I do not have the space here to re-posit all of Edwards evidence toward what he calls true virtue and the ethics of beauty. He argues that God, in creating the universe, did not create from nothing but rather from Himself. The creation is not some separate entity which exists outside of God, but that creation is the natural outflow of a perfect God who is in complete consent to Himself within the Trinity. And this creative process continues; with each new life God creates and says “it is good.” God, by His very existence, beautifies life, if we read more of Delattre. So too are we, if we want to say “yes” to God, to engage in a beautifying life. There is a very good section in Roland Delattre’s essay which defines this beautifying life: it begins with appreciating the beauty that exists; from that should come a natural tendency to want to turn things that are not beautiful into things that are; and along with that is the resistance of anything which tries to destroy beauty. Remove any one of these three supports, and the paradigm begins to collapse. Appreciation without beautifying or resistance springs from selfishness; beautifying and/or resistance without appreciation is legalism; appreciation and beautifying without resistance is hypocrisy.
                Though volumes more can be written – and indeed have – this should be a good base from which to begin to define beauty. Which, I know, I was supposed to be doing from the beginning. And I am; but here I am, halfway (roughly) through the semester. Let’s see where things are after another two months or so.

No comments:

Post a Comment