I think aesthetics is really undervalued in its importance in both ethics and rationality. We like to imagine that our sense of beautiful is distinct from what we judge as good and/or true, but I think that is a self-delusion.
-
-
our values are dramatically different than the values of the cultures where dowry is accepted. this is me getting as PoMo as I'm willing to: from their own subjective POV the dowry was ethically beautiful because it solidified kin bonding in a tribal society.
-
the aesthetics that could be developed around reinforced kin-bonding include both works of art, public rituals/ceremonies, and institutional structures that would be subject to aesthetic judgments.
-
I can't judge these things beautiful by my own cultural standards. It's not my culture and I don't want my culture to adopt dowry. I can, I think, learn to understand the beauty those foreign cultures would have found in their own dowry aesthetics.
-
ok, so what we're saying is something like, (and I dont have the right language for this, but): Ethics and Aesthetics are universally bound, but locally variable. And perhaps, you have to understand both to understand either.
-
language is hard, that's close enough
-
very interesting. I wonder what it means then that artists + spiritual leaders rarely overlap. Or is that not true...
-
who counts as a spiritual leader? old guy with a big hat? nah, that's an archon, not a spiritual leader. Matsuo Basho is a spiritual leader.
-
Michaelangelo. El Greco. Francisco de Goya. Spiritual leaders. You probably know about the works these people produced without having to look it up. Do you know who was Pope at the time without looking it up?
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.