"The ability to last is so exceedingly rare that when a man finds something which has bested time, he has found a thing for which there is only one fitting adjective: divine.”
The divinity — or inherent goodness —of what's "lindy," isn't obvious, but it pairs well with another non-obvious idea beloved by the Stoics, Plato, and Renaissance thinkers that I believe is true: what is beautiful is good and vice versa. Beauty, then, is not subjective.
“If we cannot catch the Good with the aid of one idea, let us run it down with three: Beauty, Proportion, and Truth.” Plato said.
Plato and the Stoics believed beauty had an ethical dimension. If our character is virtuous, we are beautiful. A beautiful physical thing also has a sort of excellence, or goodness to it.
Which makes me wonder about the moral implications of building a civilization that doesn't aim for beauty by default. How many modern buildings are really beautiful? How much of our art even has the objective of being beautiful?
I think it's not coincidental that many ugly modern buildings — like big box stores and even glass skyscrapers — have a lifespan of 30-50 years. On the other hand, The Pantheon is still going strong after 1,898 years.
Works of art that stand the test of time, be they buildings or sculptures or great novels, elevate our soul on some level.
I didn't have the chance to mention it in this review, but there is an entire chapter in the book dedicated to beauty, and especially human beauty, which is not often brought into the scholarly discussion of beauty. He has a very insightful section on modern buildings, which goes along with what you're saying: "Once a city has been stripped bare, its citizens no longer enjoy the public beauty which proclaims that every man has a soul and that love of neighbor is essential to the health of the soul. As opposed to regarding beautiful things as privations of charity, it is more fitting to see them as incarnations of sermons which preach generosity."
And another quote, "If beautiful things are repositories of generosity that can be perpetually drawn upon, it follows that bad taste is not a morally neutral concern, like a preference for coffee over tea or blue drapes over gray ones. Good taste entails the enjoyment of beauty, which is a gratuity of being, while bad taste is a spiritual malady that cannot help cultivating stinginess. When people prefer things which do not last over things that do, they invariably create chaotic societies where long-term cultural projects are impossible. On a cultural level, ugliness does not follow poverty so much as poverty follows ugliness: bad taste is far, far more expensive than good taste."
Enjoyed this review! Definitely curious about the book. I remember an article he wrote that had this kind of thinking behind it that I appreciated.
"The ability to last is so exceedingly rare that when a man finds something which has bested time, he has found a thing for which there is only one fitting adjective: divine.”
The divinity — or inherent goodness —of what's "lindy," isn't obvious, but it pairs well with another non-obvious idea beloved by the Stoics, Plato, and Renaissance thinkers that I believe is true: what is beautiful is good and vice versa. Beauty, then, is not subjective.
“If we cannot catch the Good with the aid of one idea, let us run it down with three: Beauty, Proportion, and Truth.” Plato said.
Plato and the Stoics believed beauty had an ethical dimension. If our character is virtuous, we are beautiful. A beautiful physical thing also has a sort of excellence, or goodness to it.
Which makes me wonder about the moral implications of building a civilization that doesn't aim for beauty by default. How many modern buildings are really beautiful? How much of our art even has the objective of being beautiful?
I think it's not coincidental that many ugly modern buildings — like big box stores and even glass skyscrapers — have a lifespan of 30-50 years. On the other hand, The Pantheon is still going strong after 1,898 years.
Works of art that stand the test of time, be they buildings or sculptures or great novels, elevate our soul on some level.
I didn't have the chance to mention it in this review, but there is an entire chapter in the book dedicated to beauty, and especially human beauty, which is not often brought into the scholarly discussion of beauty. He has a very insightful section on modern buildings, which goes along with what you're saying: "Once a city has been stripped bare, its citizens no longer enjoy the public beauty which proclaims that every man has a soul and that love of neighbor is essential to the health of the soul. As opposed to regarding beautiful things as privations of charity, it is more fitting to see them as incarnations of sermons which preach generosity."
And another quote, "If beautiful things are repositories of generosity that can be perpetually drawn upon, it follows that bad taste is not a morally neutral concern, like a preference for coffee over tea or blue drapes over gray ones. Good taste entails the enjoyment of beauty, which is a gratuity of being, while bad taste is a spiritual malady that cannot help cultivating stinginess. When people prefer things which do not last over things that do, they invariably create chaotic societies where long-term cultural projects are impossible. On a cultural level, ugliness does not follow poverty so much as poverty follows ugliness: bad taste is far, far more expensive than good taste."