Hi Brad,
Great post. Some thoughts.
20th century philosophers have developed their sundry ideas as a "critical theories" that have been critical of the ways that people impose their values on others. They have laid the basis for relativism and situational ethics and the defining power equilibrium as the greatest good. They have been concerned with the way that "values" have been used in ways that have hurt diversity and human expression. Unlike Hitler, these philosophers have offered a much more nuanced attack on values and have had particular sway among intellectuals after WWII. Many philosphers, like Heidegger, saw themselves as fighting objective nihilism of all forms of Platonism, which to them included both science and Christianity.
The question is this: how does one treat values as an aesthetic and not as another form of totalitarianism? How does one treat values in such a way that confronts the valid criticism of 20th century philosophers who have confronted the ham-handed application of values?
Boiled down, an "aesthetic" is a generality in dynamic space. Our ability to perceive an aesthetic is based on the fact that our very consciousness is an aesthetic experience of ourselves. Our consciousness is a generality in dynamic space. Our consciousness organizes all of the fluxes of our being into a "self" and "one". We see the one-ness in the midst of things that are disjointed or that have blurry edges, which is the reflection of our own consciousness. That is why we can hear a bunch of notes and recognize it as a song, or see a work of art as being something greater that the sum of its parts. It is the same ability, projecting our consciousness onto the world, that allows us to create art.
The idea that something has an aesthetic quality is that it has a sense of "being" as we interact with it with our own "being". Something as an aesthetic aspect to it is always becoming into its being and is always in flux between its one-ness and it's relationship to other things. It is this aspect of "being" that enables a value to have "oneness" and "flux". As we experience a work of art in our own being, so too does a work of art have a being that is always being re-interpreted by other beings.
The question is, what is the "being" of values? How does one operate with values in such a way that they have the firm-ness without being rigid and have flexibility without being like a jellyfish. Put another way, to use the metaphor of music, how are values, like notes, brought together and applied in an artfully beautiful way and not merely droned or used ham-handedly. Or like painting, how are values applied, like primary colors, with the expert hand of an artist who uses them to create a beautiful palette and a beautiful work?
It is this art in the application of values that Jesus was able to achieve, custom-tailoring his application of values and moral truth to each person and each situation
It was the lack of that liminality that made the Pharisees ham-handed and imprecise in their application of values.
I say all this (in rambling fashion) to say that those whom we consider to be our heroes (Abraham Lincoln, MLK) were not only “right” but also executed what is “right” in the right way.
A claim to “knowledge” is a claim to truth that is exportable beyond ones own feelings and experiences. One who wishes to make a claim to knowledge that is not merely empiracle has a higher burden in the world than merely pointing to facts—one must execute what one believes in the right way, bearing the fruit of beauty and preciousness in the world.
Too many people are not capable of doing this, and have executed their passions and values and commitment ham-handedly. It is on this “empiracle” fact that 20th century philosophers have stated, in so many words, one’s claim to have the “right values” is tantamount to imposing it on others. Out of this belief, Political correctness has arisen as the ham-handed method to protect people from the ham-handedness of others.
The whole point is that for one to take ones passions and personal commitment to what is beautiful and precious, one must have the skill and precision to execute them properly in the realm of dialogue, action and relationship. It is Jesus who was able to do this, only doing precisely what he say the Father doing at any given moment. I was the Pharisees who failed.
Greg,
These are really good thoughts. I like the idea of the ability to export the wisdom is another vital skill. I like to use marriage as a wisdom. I believe I KNOW some wisdom regarding happy marriage. Jane and I certainly are not egalitarian in our mariage and I have never seen any couple as happy as we are. The arraingement and the prinicples we live by are beautiful and wise.
Exporting this wisdom is very difficult due to the current prejudices in the world against a complementarian approach to marriage.
just an example.
In our effort to objectify everything, we have done ourselves and students a disservice. Distancing yourself from a subject is no way to learn it. Emersing yourself, connecting with it, and actually having an experience with the subject matter has so much more value than trying to make everything distant and objective. We have robbed learning of experience in an effort to objectify what really cannot be totally objective. Good post.
Commenting by HaloScan
