We love the good, not because it is good, but because it is beautiful. One who cannot apprehend beauty won't make a habit of seeking the good -- the apprehension of beauty precedes the good in sense and in action. A good person with no eye for beauty will soon fall to evil.
-
-
-
Replying to @PereGrimmer
no, its a sincere question. I read chapters on aesthetics, and critique of pure reason like 20 years ago and can't remember much in detail except outlines. Is your comment paraphrasing him?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Bugs_Meany
It might well be, I'm sort of in the same boat as you in that I haven't read much philosophy proper for a good long time. (Well, law stuff, but it doesn't really count.) * * * As far as I know, though, it's an observation borne of experience {though likely stimulated by reading..
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @PereGrimmer
I thought Kant's argument re: aesthetic judgment was one of the interesting bits the distinctions between 'useful', 'pleasing', 'beautiful', and 'sublime', and how each form of judgment is required for next (which is how you get aesthetic elitism, 'why we need critics')
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Bugs_Meany
It might be interesting to compare to the Buddhist formations & chain of dependent origination. Hm.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Or with PP, the sublime corresponds to (higher-level) surprisal but can become beautiful (with a lingering frisson) if conducive to updating/incorporation
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.