Is There in Truth No Beauty?
I have always wanted to use this as a title--I love the subtle ambiguity.
Mr. da Fiesole has presented an argument from Aquinas that helps clear up some of the muddle I was getting in over the question of objective beauty, which, I held must exist, but I was uncertain how to define it. It also suggests another way around the question of objectivity, but I'm not certain what it does with all of the other concerns, because it merely reinforces that objective beauty exists.
When reading the argument, read the shorter second paragraph first. It supplies a definition that is critical for acceptance of the longer argument on objective beauty. Now, does anyone know where one might find this argument spelled out? Somewhere perhaps in the Summa, but that's rather like saying, somewhere in the ocean.
My sincere thanks to Mr. da Fiesole.
One thing this clarification DOES NOT do is give any credence to comparatives--"Latin is objectively more beautiful than English." But it does perhaps cause me to rethink some of my statements re: comments by Kairos and others. Given a workable definition of objective beauty, which actually, I think coincides closely with my fumblings, I think I may have to say that it IS proper to say that Handel is objectively beautiful. But it still does leave us with the philosophical problem of beauty. (Why in philosophy is nearly everything a "problem" or a "question?") Well, more on that later.
