Usefulness vs. Aesthetics Regarding Philosophical Ideas and Culture

schopenhauer1

I am going to make a distinction between an "aesthetic" and "useful" aspects to the conclusions of philosophy. Let's take Pythagoras as a great example here.

Pythagoras supposedly mapped out the formulation of the Pythagorean theorem (that probably came earlier from Mesopotamia/Egypt), geometric and visual representations of numbers in patterns, proportionality, perfect numbers, irrational numbers, and such. These are very practical contributions that came out of his practice of mathematics, that to this day, affect our daily lives (through engineering, accounting, computer science, technology, and the like).

However, what is no longer attached to this usefulness is why Pythagoras cared about math. For him, it was a spiritual pursuit. He thought mathematical relationships were the foundation of the world, and there was a spiritual unification when one was seeing the "forms" of the mathematical relationships. [Note, this obviously seemed to influence Plato later on the notion of Forms]. He had an ethical system, based on vegetarianism (and curiously, not eating beans), and other interesting but peculiar notions in what counted as virtuous.

My point is that Pythagoras' theories had an aesthetic underpinning that is often ignored, except for historians or fun anecdotes. Mathematics was not necessarily about its utility, but about its basis for some form of higher knowledge (gnosis), that was unchanging. This also seemed to be influential in notions of the "Logos" later on with various forms of Stoicism.

So my point with this distinction between Pythagoras' usefulness versus aesthetics (worldview), is that indeed it seems like modernity as it played out in the Western world (and because of globalism, simply "the world at large"), seems to be a dialectic of sorts whereby the original aesthetics underpinning a theory, that is more abstract, and even in some sense "spiritual" (or at least "metaphysical"), eventually becomes discarded, and what is retained really, are the "useful" things that come about from it.

So what is leftover when discarding the aesthetic/metaphysical? It is practical knowledge in order to produce stuff, generally replicating current or innovative technologies. The beautiful/aesthetic/spiritual becomes dross technology problem-solving. Those who live in the clouds and do not problem-solve are doomed to die, as they need to have one foot in the concrete reality of the economy and survival within an economy. It seems the best of philosophers have something in common, which is that they saw philosophy as bringing us to that more aesthetic/holistic understanding of reality. Perhaps philosophy (similar to religion), is cosplay fantasy, to give reality a more interesting sense to it, and nothing more than this sensibility. What is this impulse in philosophy for an aesthetic view? What does it matter if the aesthetic view exists? Why are some people drawn to it and some not?

I could be way off base, and that's fine to call me out on it, but I see early analytics as in a way, disappointed metaphysicians. Because science seemed to be the realm of where "holistic thinking" ended (theoretical physics, large theories of evolution, brain science, psychology, etc.), the answers became almost a mockery of what an aesthetic view would be. A focus just on symbolic languages paralleling math, and parsing out sentences in "clean" ways, and such. The aesthetic sense was completely sheered off as useless, or perhaps useless to philosophy.

180 Proof

Okay, and your philosophical question is ...

schopenhauer1

Okay, and your philosophical question is ... — 180 Proof

Commentary and open up for discussion. If it doesn’t elicit a discussion point, you can ignore it.

Lionino

indeed it seems like modernity as it played out in the Western world (and because of globalism, simply "the world at large"), seems to be a dialectic of sorts whereby the original aesthetics underpinning a theory, that is more abstract, and even in some sense "spiritual" (or at least "metaphysical"), eventually becomes discarded, and what is retained really, are the "useful" things that come about from it. — schopenhauer1

It seems to me that you are projecting the vices of your own society/country (United States?) at the rest of the world. In Poland, Rumania, and Russia, churches are still being built. In Italy, it is still very common to study art, even though everybody knows it is not profitable — in most of Italy, it is very hard to build new structures, either because your property is of archaeological risk (half the country) or because you need to submit to the prefecture an architectural plan that does not clash with the architecture of your neighbourhood.

The State policy of putting the economy above all — which is how the word 'economicism' is used sometimes — seems to be what you describe, as we would rather build ugly steel-and-glass buildings that won't last a century instead of traditional architecture that will last 1000.
The building of La Sagrada Família or Monumento a Vittorio Emanuele II for sure did not aim at utility mostly, but at glorification.

Those who live in the clouds and do not problem-solve are doomed to die, as they need to have one foot in the concrete reality of the economy and survival within an economy. — schopenhauer1

Which makes us wonder why ancient Athens, a society where the elite did not always have to work (slaves!), gave us so many thinkers; while publish-or-perish academic culture has given us crap like analysis of knowledge. Surely economic fundamentalism does not help with the elevation of the spirit — but perhaps paves the way to a society like ancient Athens (in different ages people believed in cyclical history).

Wayfarer

Mathematics was not necessarily about its utility, but about its basis for some form of higher knowledge (gnosis), that was unchanging. This also seemed to be influential in notions of the "Logos" later on with various forms of Stoicism. — schopenhauer1

:100: I think you're making a vital and overlooked point. A snippet I sometimes refer to is this:

Neoplatonic mathematics is governed by a fundamental distinction which is indeed inherent in Greek science in general, but is here most strongly formulated. According to this distinction, one branch of mathematics participates in the contemplation of that which is in no way subject to change, or to becoming and passing away. This branch contemplates that which is always such as it is and which alone is capable of being known: for that which is known in the act of knowing, being a communicable and teachable possession, must be something that is once and for all fixed. — Jacob Klein, Greek Mathematical Thought and the Origin of Algebra

As is well known, Plato appropriated elements of Pythagorean philosophy, and placed dianoia, knowledge of geometry and arithmetic, higher up the 'divided line' of epistemology, than sensory knowledge (pistis). This became one of the primary sources of Galileo's mathematical philosophy of nature (via Marcello Ficino's Renaissance translations of Plato) which has had seminal influence on modern science.

The Platonist view of the reality of number is part of the general platonist veneration of the ideas or intelligible principles, which was foundational to Western culture. However, and as you say:

the original aesthetics underpinning a theory, that is more abstract, and even in some sense "spiritual" (or at least "metaphysical"), eventually becomes discarded, and what is retained really, are the "useful" things that come about from it. — schopenhauer1

I think that is exactly correct. We retained the parts that were useful (indeed, indispensable) for maths and science, but discarded the aesthetics and metaphysics, mainly because they sound too close to religion for our secular age. This too has enormous ramifications for culture.

It seems the best of philosophers have something in common, which is that they saw philosophy as bringing us to that more aesthetic/holistic understanding of reality. — schopenhauer1

:100: again. Aristotle says in the Metaphysics that it is an art pursued 'for it's own sake' and not for utility or pleasure:

At first he who invented any art whatever that went beyond the common perceptions of man was naturally admired by men, not only because there was something useful in the inventions, but because he was thought wise and superior to the rest. But as more arts were invented, and some were directed to the necessities of life, others to recreation, the inventors of the latter were naturally always regarded as wiser than the inventors of the former, because their branches of knowledge did not aim at utility. Hence when all such inventions were already established, the sciences which do not aim at giving pleasure or at the necessities of life were discovered, and first in the places where men first began to have leisure. This is why the mathematical arts were founded in Egypt; for there the priestly caste was allowed to be at leisure. — 981b

//

This is also one of the themes explored in Horkheimer's book The Eclipse of Reason. He shows how the ancient Greeks valued reason for its own sake, but also because it was naturally assumed that reason characterised or permeated the Cosmos:

the Cosmos had been seen as an inherently purposive structure of diverse but integrally inseparable rational relations — for instance, the Aristotelian aitia, which are conventionally translated as “causes,” but which are nothing like the uniform material “causes” of the mechanistic philosophy. And so the natural order was seen as a reality already akin to intellect. Hence the mind, rather than an anomalous tenant of an alien universe, was instead the most concentrated and luminous expression of nature’s deepest essence. This is why it could pass with such wanton liberty through the “veil of Isis” and ever deeper into nature’s inner mysteries. — David Bentley Hart, The Illusionist

However the modern period dramatically disrupts and breaks with this organic and participatory form of consciousness and instead situates the individual as subject in a realm of objects, caught in the cartesian division of mind and matter, self and other which characterise the hyper-pluralism of post-modern culture.

kudos

↪schopenhauer1

Perhaps philosophy (similar to religion), is cosplay fantasy, to give reality a more interesting sense to it, and nothing more than this sensibility.

Philosophy, like other fields is bogged down by egoism. There are too many who idealize their devices and powers, and ignore the past with it's genealogy and independence in hopes of total domination of the present. The intended goal of mankind is one person or a small group that can reproduce themselves; the enlightened ones. Whereas the ordinary reach our eventual elimination. The supreme medium as message of Internet consumption is the condensation of mankind into perfect individuals in their perfect spontaneity, shining in brilliance.

What is this impulse in philosophy for an aesthetic view? What does it matter if the aesthetic view exists? Why are some people drawn to it and some not?

It's romanticism, the psychological rest state of the perfect individual is boredom. The 'aesthetic' is just an attempt to intervene with ourselves, which is also doomed to failure.

baker

I just want to quote this, because it fits right here as well:

There's an interesting article from a few years back, Quantum Mysticism - Gone but not Forgotten (and published in phys.org, not some new-age website) which points out that the pioneers of quantum mechanics - Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Bohr and Pauli, among others - were deeply cultured and philosophical thinkers (product of a classical European education, one might presume). But after the War, the research dollars and focus switched to the US, driven mainly by investments from the military-industrial complex, which is why the pragmatic approach of 'shut up and calculate' won out over 'I wonder what that means'. — Wayfarer

baker

However, what is no longer attached to this usefulness is why Pythagoras cared about math. — schopenhauer1

Rather, a plebeian answer to it is taken for granted. As in, "He wanted to figure out the numbers so that he could control his surroundings."

It's like those facile plebeian explanations to the effect of, "Ancient peoples invented deities in order to explain the workings of the world and the things they feared".

Tom Storm

It seems the best of philosophers have something in common, which is that they saw philosophy as bringing us to that more aesthetic/holistic understanding of reality. Perhaps philosophy (similar to religion), is cosplay fantasy, to give reality a more interesting sense to it, and nothing more than this sensibility. What is this impulse in philosophy for an aesthetic view? What does it matter if the aesthetic view exists? Why are some people drawn to it and some not? — schopenhauer1

I have often wondered this myself. I tend to think that aesthetics and emotion are foundational to people's beliefs - explaining the ideas they are drawn to and what characterises their sense making process. Some find the idea of a world of transcendence more beautiful and pleasing. The theme that the world has become disenchanted by unattractive and instrumentalist post enlightenment thinking and scientism seems to bring many people back to classical ideas and a search for harmony and metanarratives.

180 Proof

So what is leftover when discarding the aesthetic/metaphysical? — schopenhauer1

Mostly, I think, we are deflating – deemphasizing – rather than "discarding the aesthetic/metaphysical".

What is this impulse in philosophy for an aesthetic view?

Intellectual desire.

What does it matter if the aesthetic view exists?

It doesn't matter except to a subject who adopts an "aesthetic view".

Why are some people drawn to it and some not?

Sensibility.

Usefulness vs. Aesthetics Regarding Philosophical Ideas and Culture

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions