A thought came to me the other day with regards to the occurrence of beauty; where it is, and how it came to be. I am not going to address my lack of definition with regards to what beauty is, and therefore this may turn out to be completely ridiculous; how can one consider an attribute’s vocation if they are unaware of its essence?
Regardless, here it is…
What if beauty is objective because God is objective? What if it is appropriate to add to our list of God’s cant’s (i.e. God cannot lie, God cannot sin, God cannot create a rock to big for Him to pick up etc.) that it is also impossible for God to be un-beautiful? What if everything that God touches (hence, everything that was created) possesses some amount or form of beauty because of the Author; maybe it cannot be otherwise. What if it is impossible for God to make an ugly thing?
If God cannot make an ugly thing, then the only ugly things are things of His secondary causation i.e. sin. God created man, and though scripturally speaking, sin is not outside of God’s control, or ultimately His plan, it is still very clearly it is man who sins, not God.
I often marvel at the beauty of a sunset; not so much because it is beautiful, but because its beauty seems to me somehow unnecessary. God could have made a functional “day’s end” that did not have to burst with color and life and footprint’s of a realm untold; or could He??? Maybe it is impossible for God to create an ugly function; perhaps every function He created is yet beautiful because beauty is the medium by which He proclaims and creates all things. Beauty is His fingerprint, and He leaves it upon everything He touches.
It has helped me to breathe in each day, looking at everything as possessing an uncontainable beauty that could not have come from a person's own subjective assessment.
2 comments:
Very nice!!! I had never really thought of beauty that way...or maybe I have but could never articulate it.
In regards to the objectivity of beauty I have always liked the arguement stating: if God is the essence of goodness, truth and beauty, then by saying that beauty is subjective you are then (in your own mind) making God subjective. This can only lead to divisions (such as in the church) and the way you live your life. Because it now leaves room for to much interpetation of something that wasn't meant to be interpeted. "Eat my flesh, drink my blood".
Yes the sunset is incredibly beautiful! I sometimes wondered the same thing.
Ok I've g2g....sorry I have to cut this short!! I'm off to vegas!! :~( ttyl
Yes, that is an interesting way of evaluating it. I find myself coming to the conclusion more and more that beauty is in fact objective. I have heard many (I must say, reasonable) arguments that it is simply a subjective adjective to describe what one considers preferable or delightful. But although I can agree that this is indeed the modern definition of beauty, and that "delight" is indeed subjective, what I am looking to comprehend is an attribute, an attribute that is not subjective but more substantial and more relevant to the argument for theism than it is generally accredited; this attribute I would call beauty for lack of a better word and because, although it may not be beauty's modern definition, it may turn out to be beauty's rightful definition still.
As I mentioned however, there are reasonable oppositions; but it is possible that they arise more from different definitions than actual conceptual disagreements.
Btw, “eat my flesh” & “drink my blood”…that would make for an interesting topic. :o)
Post a Comment