Gotta Have It

As an intangible idea, beauty appears to be highly subjective, considering one’s perception of beauty is likely to differ from another’s. Simply put, beauty could be considered the perception of the ideal. Nevertheless, it would seem that something must be common in humanity’s understanding of beauty to lead them to have such an appreciation. Though differing, this ideal can be characterized by attraction. This attraction to something beatiful, personally, is usually fueled by something that provides meaning. This may seem general, but different things in life provide me with meaning, which in turn can be considered as ideal, and thus allow the beauty of the thing, whether it be a person, piece of art, or a two thousand year-old edifice. For beauty to be seen, I truly believe that there must be meaning present in it.

Beauty can and should be found in many forms. For example, a person’s beauty can be illustrated on several levels. One person’s beauty can be measured by intelligence while another’s can be measured their humility. Such faculties have the ability to display beauty. This then would lead me to discuss why I believe outer beauty or general attractiveness is a completely superfucial and false form of beauty. I honestly believe that outer beauty is a façade, and thus cannot display true beauty. Additionally, this misconception of beauty is ridiculous because it is merely a judgement of appearance and not character. The appearance of a person should not provide meaning; it is solely characterizes superficiality and not beauty itself. In short, so long as meaning can be found, beauty can and will be.

Three Degrees of Separation (of Art)

The Platonic concept of “Three degrees of separation” has often been used to describe the creation of art. The piece of art, which is made by an artist, thus is then an adaptation of a tangible object. Simply put, it is an imitation of something tangible or the artist’s idea of something that may not be fully understood. In turn the form of art seems to be the lowest level. The second level would then appear to be the artist themselves, who is solely responsible for creating and possibly changing the actual form and representation of the art. This level can clearly be seen as highly subjective, as the artist obtains the concept of manipulation. Then, this would necessitate the highest level, characterized by the ideal. But this begs the question, who is to say what defines an object as the ideal form.
Personally, this is the most curious point of the idea of “three degrees of separation. “ Last week, as our philosophy class searched to find beauty in a museum which was formerly the residence of aristocratic Roman family, I realized that there was probably one artist responsible for decorating the edifice. This artist manipulated idealistic views of beauty, which in turn led to art. I indeed thought that many of the mosaics were spectacular, but this feeling would obviously not be shared by all people. I came to feel that beauty is innate in many things in life. Art, on the other hand, seems to be a search for an idealistic beauty, which, in my opinion cannot be defined or reached. Additionally, to say that something is beautiful is irrational, because as I stated before, art is subjective and the feeling or emotion associated with the ideal, will and cannot be shared by all people.

The Starting Point

In Miguel de Unamuno’s Tragic Sense of Life, the reader is presented with a concept of a “starting point,” which may be understood to be the foundation of knowledge itself. This knowledge, which seems to be ascertained through merely human curiosity is then differentiated into two categories: one which is inherent among all humans through their instincts and a second form of knowledge, which is different than the former but closely related because it is essentially derived from it. The first form of knowledge simply emerges from inherent human tendencies while the other is based in human curiosity. Nevertheless, we as humans develop the latter as we experience more and subsequently form desires. Personally, I can illustrate the two forms of knowledge by relating them to my current experience, in which I am studying abroad in Rome, Italy.

By tracing the origin of knowledge to basic human instincts, we realize that our desires evolve. For me, my desire to study originates in my love of the ancient Roman culture. Initially, I was exposed to this area of study through the Latin language, in which I have been studying for nearly eight years. It is then simple to see how I can relate this to Unamuno’s idea of the “starting point.” This relation is garnered at first through me only learning Latin, thus the starting point of why I decided to study in Rome. Then, as my search for knowledge evolved from a sole curiosity into a deeper desire, I symbolically encountered this stage of progress, where innate knowledge becomes a greater yearning, and thus an eagerness to learn. Additionally, there is seemingly a contrast between knowledge and reason, in which the desire becomes practical, since we as humans must satisfy it. I did this clearly, by choosing to study Rome.

In conclusion, it would seem that logic necessitates a “starting point,” or an origin of knowledge, which grows as human curiosity expands.