It is a feeble view of art that isolates it as a sphere of its own for those who find it amusing.

The word and command of God demand art, since it is art that sets us under the word of the new heaven and the new earth. Those who, in principle or out of indolence, want to evade the anticipatory creativity of aesthetics are certainly not good. Finally, in the proper sense, to be unaesthetic is to be immoral and disobedient.

Karl Barth, Ethics [lectures from 1928-29], ed. Dietrich Braun (New York: Seabury Press, 1981), p. 510.

"Beauty is an event; beauty happens when the Whole offers itself in the fragment, and when this self-giving transcends infinite distance. But is this really possible? How can the limitless inhabit what is little? How can the everlasting 'abbreviate' itself without ceasing to be? And how can immensity become small and still exist? Bruno Forte, 2008, The Portal of Beauty: Towards a Theology of Aesthetics Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

The tension between aesthetics and ethics has been evident since the time of classical Greece. Both Aristotle and Plato had varying ideas of the role of aesthetics with respect to virtue and the good life; with the latter denying poets any place in the governance of his Republic. In more recent times, the crisis in modernity marked by obsessive individualism and narcissistic consumption has moved theologians and philosophers to question the values which we live by. According to some authors, the search for answers to questions such as Who am I? What do I want to be? have become increasingly difficult to find. There is a sense that ..we are living in conditions that render this search impossible: a society in which the bonds between the various members are increasingly dissolving.. (Bender,1998:1). For one theologian the problem stems from The divorce among the Platonic transcendentals-the True, the Good, and the Beautiful- variously attributed to Kant or the art-for-art sakes movement (McCall, 2004: 479). One might also ask: Does this appeal to aesthetics run the risk of rampant fetishism in an age of over-aestheticised consumption? However, as Balthasar notes, the goal is not for aesthetics of theology but a theology of aesthetics (Balthusar, 1984). Heeding this call, theological advocates ranging from Augustine, Balthasar, Whitehead, Nussbaum and MacIntyre to philosophers such as Marcia Eaton (to name one), have embarked on a project to revive humanity through the integration of the aesthetic and the moral. As one non-theological source notes: Aesthetic experience could bring back our sensibility for those contexts that are necessary to help us live the good life (Bender,1998:2) For the purposes of this paper, the nexus between aesthetics (beauty) and the good life (virtue) will be considered from a theological (Thomistic) perspective, revealing its Aristotelian and Platonic roots. Further on, we will consider more contemporary neoAristotelian attempts to unify aesthetics and ethics in the work of Nussbaum and others, and consider some of the limitations to this project. By exploring such issues this paper aims not so much to provide definitive answers, but to illuminate the Whole in the material fragment (Forte, 2008). In the teleological Christian view of aesthetics, beauty and its role in the good life may appear to be fundamentalist to the uninitiated. However, closer consideration of the

Catholic (or generally Christian) perspective on the subject adds another layer to this dynamic issue. In order to best understand the Christian/Catholic view on beauty and the good life, we must delve into some of the principle aspects of (neo-Platonic) Christian thought. In relation to beauty, Christian notions can be traced to Western conceptions of beauty. More specifically, following the tradition of Plato, two major strands emerge. First, beauty is identified as form, which for Plato meant the internal pattern or structure of all existing material things. This harmonious arrangement of parts forms the unity or essence of an object. For Plato, all existing things are comprised of a harmonious unity of parts, and it is this harmony which constitutes the beauty of an object. In other words, beauty is synonymous with unity, order, harmony, symmetry and proportionality. As such all existing things are comprised of this unity, and to exist is also to be beautiful. Thus, beauty is equivalent to being/existence. So why does recognition of the unity move us to aesthetic pleasure? In Platos doctrine of the soul, the souls existed freely in the transcendental realm of the perfect Forms. However, the souls became corrupted and fell to the imperfect world of particulars and took on human flesh. As a consequence, deep within the soul of every human is the longing to rejoin the world of Forms. Further, the structural characteristics of (form) of existing things in the imperfect world have counterparts in the world of ideal Forms. To recognise harmony of form in an object is to glimpse this counterpart and transcend to it. It is this recognition, in the form of aesthetic pleasure which inflames the longing of the soul for its ultimate return to the world of Forms. As Augustine observes, beauty is objective in nature and an objects evocation of aesthetic pleasure results because its parts correspond and are so joined together so as to form one harmonious whole (Augustine, 1953: 255) Beauty is also rational according to the Platonic conception. The understanding of form in all existing things also entails a certain logic; that the harmonious ordering of the parts follows a logical order. For Plato this logical order is the idealised Forms. For early Christian Platonists the order originated from God. In the Christianised version, Platos forms were replaced by concepts in the mind of God. Thus particular forms reveal something of the nature of God. As such beauty plays a revelatory role in the Christian tradition. Furthermore, beauty is also conceived of as an event whereby the Forms manifest themselves in the

material world. When the ultimate forms enter the realm of the particular the soul glimpses them via beauty. Aesthetic pleasure is again this recognition of the Forms. The soul longs to be reunited but only gains temporary satisfaction through aesthetic pleasure. According to Bruno Forte, the event of beauty occurs when the transcendent Whole makes its abode in the material fragment. (Forte, 2008: vii). In the Christian view, the event of the Whole offering itself in the fragment is mediated through the Divine Word. Due to the fall, the connection between material forms (man, nature) and transcendent Forms (God) was severed. As such man had no way of connecting to the ultimate Forms (God), now lost in the world of lower forms. However, it is the Word of God which re-establishes this relationship, by becoming a perfect harmonious unity of the divine and man. By recognising beauty in the perfect harmony and unity of the Word, man once again ascends to the ultimate Beauty. Further expanding this Christian metaphysic of beauty, is Aquinass ideas on the principle of light and dark. On the question of what makes the brightness of a form beautiful, Aquinas adds to the aesthetic framework by including claritas (brightness), along with the other qualities of integritas( integrity) and proportion (proportion/harmony). For Aquinas, claritas refers to the illumination of the form. Claritas occurs when the Whole (ultimate Form) encircles the lower parts and then burst through opening the way for the observer to catch a glimpse of the Whole in all its glory. (Forte, 2008:18) One could sight a multitude of works (Hans Von Balthasar being prominent) attesting to the importance of beauty and aesthetics for the religious imperative. By revealing the inner workings of this Christian ontology, we can gain insight into the implications of beauty in relation to that other chimera of Christian theology - the incarnation. For at the heart of Christianity lies a certain paradox. How is the Whole able to penetrate the fragment? How is the infinite/limitless able to enter the finite/limited? How can the Whole be both transcendent and immanent? For Marcus Little in his work, The Paradoxical Beauty of the Cross, Christ is the embodied Form of the infinite and finite; in Christ the transcendent becomes immanent. Thus, the problem of the event of beauty (when the Whole offers itself in the part) is resolved in the incarnation (Little, 2011:75). Having established some of the metaphysical groundwork for beauty(aesthetics) from a theological perspective, the next stage of this paper will consider the ethical implications of

aesthetics and beauty. More to the point, how does the theological notion of beauty shape our understanding of the good life? To do this, we are obliged to acknowledge Aristotle, and his Christian executor par excellence, Thomas Aquinas. For Aquinass moral philosophy is the mainstay of an ethical system which believes that God and religious values are primary; that true goodness is to be measured in terms of an ultimate goal or aim (teleological). The broad outline of Aristotles teaching is found in the Nichomachean and Eudemian Ethics where he writes of the human good. The good for man, according to Aristotle is an active use or exercise of those faculties which are distinctly human, that is, the powers of mind and will, as distinct from the lower faculties of feeling, nutrition and growth. Human excellence is thus defined in two ways: as the habitual subordination of the senses and lower tendencies to rational rule and principle, and in the exercise of reason in search for the contemplation of truth. The former kind of virtue is defined as moral, the latter as intellectual. A well-known feature of Aristotles ethics which deeply influenced Aquinas is the theory that each of the moral virtues is a mean between excess and defect; thus courage is a mean between cowardice and rashness, and liberality is a mean between stinginess and generosity. In the Politics, Aristotle also set forth the importance of the political community as the sustainer of the typically human life. But for Aristotle the highest good for man is found not in the political life nor even in the performance of the virtues as such. The highest good consists in the theoretical inquiry and contemplation of truth. Thus, through contemplation of knowledge and being man participates in pure thought which constitutes the eternal perfection of the divine nature, which is God. Much of this structure of Aristotelian thought is retained by Aquinas. However, the importance difference being that for Aquinas man is more than a composite of body and soul. For Aquinas, man is elevated to a supernatural order through his state of grace, or divine friendship. While he may strive to perfect the virtues of particular acts, and the cardinal virtues of prudence, fortitude, temperance and justice, all are subordinate to the final end. In short, Aquinas inserts the theological virtues, or infused virtues which are independent of the process of acquired virtue. For it is the infused virtues of Faith, Hope and Charity that are produced in us by God without our assistance (Hardon, 2012: 4). Infused in the mind and will by God, as opposed to the habits acquired by personal experience, these theological virtues would never be known to us, except through divine

revelation. Overall, happiness may be considered in two ways: one is through our human nature, obtainable through our native powers of mind and will; the other is immeasurably higher, surpassing nature and reason and secured only through God and his communication through the Word. Of course, the current climate of scepticism and post-Kantian analysis, have forced a revision of pre-modern notions of aesthetics and ethics. In the work of Martha Nussbaum and Alistair MacIntyre we find a more sophisticated approach to virtue ethics which builds on the Aristotle/Aquinas framework. Calling for the need of a more nuanced approach to ethics and value judgement in modern society, they advocate a rehabilitation of a premodern ethic. Here the aim is to rid ethical questions of false or inadequate demands, often raised by a deontological morality, based on rigorous principle. For them, moral behaviour is an aesthetic task (Bender, 1998:6) Of course, the question posed is: can aestheticism function as a substitute for the ethical? In short, Nussbaum posits the idea that in order to best decide what is good for an individuals life, a person requires a more holistic approach to their context. By exploring the protagonists in a work of literature, Nussbaum argues that the strategies they derive in their life a far from determined by set rules or general principles as such. Moreover, their solutions are an ongoing exercise of imaginative power and empathy for the other person. Crucially, the degree of imaginative power they need in order to solve their problem relies heavily on their aesthetic attitude to the situation. Bender summarises it: By aesthetic representation it becomes clear that a highly sensitive perception of the situation is necessary for successful conflict solution. In this perception, the moral significance is already included in the phenomena that come together in the picture; it is not created by a later and outward application of general norms to a description of facts. One only has to look closely and honestly, then one feels what is required in a specific conflictual situation, and no complicated moral deductions are needed (Bender, 1998:7) In general, Nussbaum (and MacIntrye) focus on a conception of value judgement which focuses on the special qualities of discernment possessed by apt aesthetic and ethical perceivers. (Eldridge, 2005). This she argues is what underwrites specific ethical assessment, against a background of general principle. In Nussbaums words we seek in ethical

assessment, the best overall fit between a view and what is deepest in human lives (Nussbaum, 1990: 148). While such views on aesthetic and ethics offers a multi-dimensional account of the good and flexible interpretation of the different virtues in character and art, it is not always clear exactly how this particularism fits with the objectivism. As Eldridge notes, when there is that much variety in judgements of value, often linked to cultural context, value judgement may become mere expression of social or individual preference (Eldridge,2005: 17). In addition to the virtue ethics revival, there have also been direct theological calls for aesthetics in the area of ethics. In the introduction of his work Aesthetics and Ethics Roland A. Delattre writes: Somebody must rescue aesthetics from the philosophers, art historians, art critics and the fashion industry, and restore its relevance to religious ethics (Delattre, 2003: 277). By revisiting the theological ethics of Jonathan Edwards three hundred years ago, Delattre envisions a universe goverened by the attractive and creative power of Gods own beautifying life. His emphasis is on a dynamic, continuing creative power which informs the good life. He believes beauty is something to which humanity is universally responsive. For Edwards and Delattre, beauty is the first principle of being and the most distinguishing; it is that by which God is most distinguished from all other beings. As for its efficacy in regards to ethics, by incorporating beauty into our life it draws us into fresh ways of imagining the contemporary conditions and prospects for humanity (Delattre, 2003:280) Further evidence of the role of aesthetics in ethics can be found in the area of theodicy, most notable in Alfred North Whitehead and Saint Augustine. For Whitehead, the aesthetic theodicy of adventure, encapsulated by Dostoevskys line, Beauty will save the world, aptly captures the central tenet of theodicy, namely, to solve the doctrinal problem of evil with the help of aesthetics and metaphor. In contrast to the Augustinian theodicy of aesthetic harmony, Whiteheads process theodicy favours intensity of feeling over harmony, discord over triviality. Hence, the view that evil can be overcome in the creative adventure of the universe, by the growth of aesthetic value. For Augustine, aesthetic theodicy finds in beauty, a logic of contrastive harmony. In other words, he utilises two aesthetic values of contrast and totality to account for good and evil in the world. Further, the aesthetic affect of the contrast between good and evil enhances the overall beauty of the cosmos (Sohn, 2009: 820)

Some theologians have also posited an aesthetic theology which makes theology in the same way art is made(McCall,2004: 480). Focusing on the act of liturgy and the manner of theology making, McCall argues that rather than the traditional focus on the object (the True) and the end (Good) with some attention on the method(logic, dialectic and analysis), aesthetic theology would utilise a variety of materials (gesture, music, paint, bodies, space, non-discursive speech etc). Further, it could look at how these elements are used in the final meaning and effect of theology. As such, the liturgy, for instance, can be affected by an enactment of the various tools at hand- not unlike the process of art making. In this way, there is the possibility of a public structure to our intersubjectivity which in post-modern philosophy has dissolved (McCall, 2004:481). Closely related to this artistic view of theology and aesthetics is Jonathan Wrights discussion on aesthetic reason (or aesthetic theology) in relation to Ministry. In a critique of the current methods and practices of ministry students, Wright argues that they are in danger of graduating undressed or over-dressed. To be undressed is to be lacking of free imaginative thought and creative inspiration. Over-dressed on the other hand is to come to ministry with a corporate or rationalist mind, interpret texts in isolation from the realities of life. As he concludes: All that hard work and study to produce papers and sit exams bind the lid on the beauty of life and limit the free expression of the aesthetic imagination (Wright, 2006: 2). Thus far we have explored the workings of aesthetics and ethics, and considered the varying ways that theologians (and some philosophers) have responded to the Balthasarian contention, that the great theological systems which were modelled on the ancient unity of philosophy and theology were abandoned (Balthasar, 1984). More precisely, this has resulted in the intellectualisation of theology and the emptying from it of all aesthetic elements (Chia, 1996: 76). While the project for an aesthetics theology has many merits for religion, the individual and society as a whole, it would be worth considering some of the limits and problematic nature of such an endeavour. One of the criticisms can be found within the theological community itself. In the quest for a more aesthetic form of reasoning in theology some are still sceptical of the practical theological program which still has traces of the Westernised/Hellenistic paradigm (critical

analysis and objectification). For Daniel Louw (2001), practical theology needs to further integrate aesthetic reasoning in order to liberate it from positivistic approach towards human actions and ministry (Louw,2001). Further, there is a need for a relational interpretation (of scripture) which discloses immediate identification, over and against a rational interpretation (exegesis) (Louw, 2001:327). Furthering this critique is the contention that Balthusar defines aesthetics primarily in relation to visual arts. As such, this has led him to overlook the aural and therefore intangible aesthetics of the Reformed tradition (Chia, 1996:76). From a non-theological perspective, an even more dislodging argument arises from critics who view the neo-Aistotelian project (virtue ethics revival) with some suspicion. In a thorough analysis of Nussbaums and MacIntyres work, Rudiger Bender, while acknowledging the valuable insights that current virtue ethics has provided in the area of aesthetics and ethics, asks: Have MacIntyre and Nussbaum succeeded in rehabilitating the pre-modern ethic with the help of aestheticism?(Bender, 1998:10) Firstly, he finds their attempt to explain alternative concepts of the good life via nuanced accounts of narratives as misguided. His major point is that art, aesthetics and narratives (of art and a persons life)are not always at the service of ethics. Art and aesthetic experience involve a distancing from the social world of norms, values and goods, cultural symbols and patterns of socialisation. This distance is the source of ambivalence within aesthetic experience. Because of this ambivalent distance literature/art/aesthetics do not only serve the purpose of expressing shared ethical norms. As such aesthetic experience also opens up the necessary space for change of experiences and the discovery of new possibilities (Bender, 1998: 13). Furthermore, unlike the ancient polis where aesthetic experience could still provide some sense of collective unity, current attempts to unify moral, ethical and aesthetics have been restricted because of the irreversible process of differentiation and rationalisation. He concludes that only by resisting the trend to equate ethics and aesthetics can the possibility of mutual fertilisation of both areas take place.( Bender,2004: 12) We have so far explored the theological view of incorporating aesthetics for the purpose of attaining divine truth. We could also conceive aesthetics as essential to the contemplative process. More importantly, the pursuit of transcendence in the form of contemplation also need not be a departure from more real human considerations (the good life of the individual and the

society). Hayden Ramsay argues that transcendent thinking (or aesthetic thinking) can be beneficial in unexpected ways. He argues that many instances where humans appear to go beyond human nature by way of irrational imaginative leaps often turn out to be breakthroughs in science, medicine and art. In effect, Ramsay appeals for space for the contemplative spirit, for that sense of wonder, and aesthetic play in relation to thinking and faith. It is chiefly through this that God becomes intelligible to us. (Ramsay, 1998, p.60). It is a valid calling for Catholics, other Christians and secular society. In other works Ramsay (2005) extends this idea of the freedom to contemplate, into the spheres of leisure, sport and art. Not the mindless indulgence of consumer culture, but a more nuanced approach to life which heeds the deeper parts of our spirit. Culture needs to reclaim this all too human nature in order to become whole and closer to God. To conclude, we have seen, throughout this paper, how aesthetics can lead to an enhanced way of being in the world. Whether it be for greater clarity of the divine word or more holistic accounts of what is good, aesthetics can play a vital role. The virtue ethics resurgence in particular, is testament to this nuanced perspective of human character (along with actions), and its potential to deepen our understanding of what is good. In theology and philosophy, the hunger for aestheticism and aesthetic approaches to life is a welcome trend in a world whose centre is in constant flux. If for a moment we need to pause and set the boundaries of value, and risk the relativist wrath, then so be it.

Bibliography

Aristotle., 1991, The Nichomachean Ethics. Transl. by William David Ross, Oxford 1925 Augustine., 1953. On True Religion. Augustine: Earlier Writings. UK: Burleigh. Balthasar, H.U.V., 1984. The Glory of the Lord: A Theological aesthetics. Edinburgh: T&T. Clark. Barth, K., 1981, Ethics [lectures from 1928-29], ed. Dietrich Braun ,New York: Seabury Press, p. 510. Bender, R., 1998. The Aesthetics of Ethical Reflection and the Ethical Significance of Aesthetic Experience. Accessed 5/6/12 from: http//www.webdoc.gwdg.de/edoc/ia/eee/artic98/bender/1_98.html Bruno Forte, 2008, The Portal of Beauty: Towards a Theology of Aesthetics, Netherlands, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. Chia. R., 1996, Theological Aesthetics or Aesthetic Theology?, Scottish Journal of Theology, 49(1), pp76 Delattre, R., 2003. Aesthetics and Ethics. Journal of Religious Ethics, 32(2), pp277-279 Eaton, M.M.,1991, Aesthetics and the Good Life, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Crticism, 49(2), pp175-177 Eaton, M., 1997, Aesthetics: The Mother of Ethics, Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 44(3), pp355-64 Eldridge, R., 2011. Aesthetics and Ethics. UK: Oxford University Press Hooft, V.S., 2006. Understanding Virtue Ethics. UK: Acumen Hardon, J.A., The Meaning of Virtue in St. Thomas Aquinas. Accessed 4/6/12 from: http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=6092 Little, M.,2011, The Paradoxical Beauty of the Cross: Theological Aesthetics and the Doctrine of the Atonement in Athanasius Contra Gentes De Incarnatio, Eleutheria: A Graduate Student Journal, 1(2), pp72-86 Louw, L., 2001, Creative Hope and Imagination in a Practical Theology of Aesthetic, Reason, Religion and Theology, 8(4), pp327

MacIntyre, A., 1984, After Virtue: A Study in Moral theory. US, Notre Dame/Ind. McCall, R.D., 2004. Imagining the Other: Toward and Aesthetic Theology, Religion and the Arts, 8(4), pp479-485. Nussbaum, M.,1985, Finely Aware and Richly Responsible: Moral Attention and the Moral Task of Literature, The Journal of Philosophy, 21(5), pp515-529 Ramsay, H., 1998. Transcendence and Reason. Ratio, 11(1), pp. 55 - 65 Ramsay, H., 2005. Reclaiming leisure: art, sport, and philosophy. (pdf) Palgrave Macmillan. Available through Sydney University website: http://www.palgraveconnect.com/pc/doifinder/10.1057/9780230512825

Ratzinger, J., 2006. The Beauty and Truth of Christ. LOsservatore, 6 Nov. Sohn, H., 2009. God in Aesthetic Evolution: Whiteheads Aesthetic Theodicy of Adventure, Heythrop Journal, 50(5), pp819-832

Wright, J., 2012. Toward a working Definition for Aesthetic Imagination. Accessed 7/6/12 from: http//www.webjournals.ac.edu.au/journals/PCB/200501/02-toward.html

Name: George Zisopoulos ID: 20110829

Essay Topic

Aesthetics and Ethics

What is the relationship between aesthetics and ethics? What is the role of aesthetics in our pursuit of the Good Life?