Thank you, Darlan Campos, for an interesting question!
Beauty is usually deemed to be a superficial virtue in light of the fact that it is rarely everlasting and only gives rise to but an instance of aesthetic pleasure. The experience of beauty is incredibly short and seems to have no long-lasting effect. Natural beauty always fades. So why try to hold onto something that is constantly passing away? Aren’t there stronger and longer-lasting virtues, like wisdom, courage, temperance? Let us try to understand this concept by taking a quick glance at the history of philosophy.
In spite of the fact that beauty is a somewhat ephemeral quality, there seems to be an aspect of beauty which may invoke a sense of respect and awe, since it gives rise to an experience of harmony and order. Immanuel Kant’s understanding of beauty associates it with a certain moral and divine quality, especially in the case of the sublime. The sublime is something that is both physically overwhelming and a reminder of our rational nature – the very thing that, according to Kant, we must always respect and uphold.
The Ancient Greeks had a similar approach, linking beauty to the good and the just. Beauty is one of those features which represent a certain kind of symmetry or mathematical order, which relates it to the order in nature, logos. Through beauty we may understand the ultimate architecture of logos, which, in this context, is synonymous with order and harmony. Plato believed that music and poetry would shape one’s very soul, and that in the presence of harmony our souls find peace and calm.
It seems that beauty is seen not as a virtue in itself, but as valuable only insofar as it reminds us of the divine, the good or the sublime. That is because of its fleeting nature. From this perspective, people who are superficial or futile are at fault because they fail to see what beauty ought to represent: the rational, the orderly, the sublime. They take beauty as valuable only because it gives us some aesthetic pleasure. We ought to let beauty remind us of something higher and more significant. In that sense, beauty might be called an instrumental virtue, rather than a virtue-in-itself.
Nietzsche, however, had a completely different approach to beauty: he understood it as arising from physical and emotional pain, or even chaos. The work of the artist is to embrace that pain and disorder, be inspired by it, and express it through works of art. Here we have a validation of beauty, without recourse to a specific understanding of morality or divinity. In fact, aesthetic experience might be a way of breaking away from traditional values and principles. In that respect, Nietzsche celebrated the Greek god of wine and dance, Dionysus, rather than the god of order and wisdom, Apollo. What do you think? Is beauty related to order or chaos?
What do you think? Is beauty valuable? If so, why? Let us know in the comments.
And, as always, if you have a question for the Armchair Philosophers, don’t hesitate to get in touch. You could send us a message or fill in this form.
Image: (credit)
I completed my MA and PhD at the Philosophy Department of Boğaziçi University. My main areas of research are history of philosophy, social and political philosophy, and moral philosophy. My dissertation was on Kant's account of conscience, so I had to work through most of Kant's texts. He is my favorite philosopher because he revolutionized the philosophical scene in Europe and still continues to be influential to this day. He was one of the first philosophers to work out a comprehensive system which integrates several areas of philosophy, and he has given me a remarkable sense of what philosophy can be.