XVII
INTERNATIONAL PHILOSOPHY OLYMPIAD THEMES
HELSINKI
22-26
May 2009
1.
If
then, there is some end of the things we do,
which we desire for its own sake (everything
else being desired for the sake of this), and if
we do not choose everything for the sake of
something else (for at that rate the process
would go on to infinity, so that our desire
would be empty and vain), clearly this must be
the good and the chief good.
Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics I, 1 1094a
Translation by William Davd Ross, revised
translation by J.L. Ackrill and J.O. Urmson;
Oxford University Press,1998
Yapılanlarda kendisi için istediğimiz,başka
şeyleri de onun için istediğimiz bir amaç varsa
ve herşeyi bir başka şey için tercih etmiyorsak
(çünkü bu şekilde bu sonsuza gider, dolayısıyla
arzumuz boş ve boşuna olur), bunun iyi ve en iyi
olduğu açık.
Aristoteles, Nikomakhos’a Etik 1094a,
Çev. Saffet Babür, Çeviriyi orijinaliyle
karşılaştıran Ioanna Kuçuradi, Hacettepe
Üniversitesi Yayınları, Ankara,1988,s.6
2.
In
accordance with reason there is only one way
that states in relation with one another can
leave the lawless condition, which involves
nothing but war; it is that, like individual
human beings, they give up their savage
(lawless) freedom, accomodate themselves to
public coercive laws, and so form an (always
growing) state of nations (civitas
gentium) that would finally encompass all the
nations of the earth.
Immanuel
Kant, Toward Perpetual Peace, VIII, 357,
transl. Mary J. Gregor
Devletlerin birbirleriyle münasebetlerinde akla
uygun tek yol, tek tek insanlar gibi, vahşi ve
başıboş hürriyetlerinden vazgeçerek umumi
kanununların müeyyidesi altına girmek ve daima
gelişerek sonunda bütün dünya milletlerini
kucaklayacak bir milletler devleti (civitas
gentium) kurmaktır.
Immanuel Kant , Ebedî Barış Üzerine Felsefî Bir
Deneme, Çev. Yavuz Abadan, S.L. Meray, Ankara ,
Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi
Yayınları,No.33, 1960 s.25
3.
Must
a work of art be beautiful in order to be a work
of art, or may a work of art be ugly as well? If
the latter is possible, why should we take
interest in it?
Bir
sanat eseri, sanat eseri olmak bakımından güzel
olmak zorunda mıdır, yoksa çirkin de olabilir
mi? Eğer bu sonuncu mümkünse, niçin o eser
ilgimizi çeker?
4.
It
is not just the existence of God, but rather the
very cohererence of the idea of God, that is
problematic.
Sadece
Tanrı’nın varlığı değil; daha çok Tanrı
kavramının tam tutarlılığı problematiktir.
Gold
medal:
49. Sarri Nironen (Fin) - (Art)
Silver medals:
15. Eliza Tymianska (Pol) - (God)
40. Petar Penev (Bul) - (Kant)
Bronze medals:
25. Kristina Kashfullina (Rus) - (Art)
51. Luiza Pasca (Rom) - (Art)
Honorary mentions:
1. Hyun-Kyu Kim (S-Kor) - (Kant)
4. Ayse Dilek Izek (Tur) - (Kant)
23. Pietari Kupiainen (Fin) - (Kant)
30. Patrick Mujunen (Fin) - (Kant)
places 10.-12.:
9. Alexandru Dan Mandru (Rom) - (Kant)
46. Helene Sorgner (Aus) - (Aristotle)
47. Lee-Hyun Kim (S-Kor) - (Kant)
Gold
Sarri Nironen,
Finland (49)
III.
Picasso’s
Cubist paintings, Philip Glass’s
eccentric music, Duchamp’s
famous statue of a toilet seat
–
although considered art now, all have been
criticized of being ugly, too left-field or
simply unsuitable to bear the
‘art-tag’.
Moreover, pop music, mainstream movies and
television shows have long been criticized for
not providing any real depth and solely existing
for entertainment purposes, therefore, again,
not being art at all. When answering this
question I understand art meaning all its forms
possible
–
music, visual arts, literature, not limiting
myself to one branch only and thus trying to
answer as comprehensively and holistically as
possible.
The question of whether an ugly
piece of art can be called art is as
long-lasting as art itself, and is difficult to
answer precisely because we haven’t
defined the words with which we try to discuss
the topic. First I will try to define the terms
with which I will try to answer the question:
can a work of art be ugly, and
–
and this, perhaps, is the most difficult part --
if so, why should we take interest in it?
PART A: BEAUTY
AND ITS PLACE IN ART WORLD
The definition of
beauty has changed during the course of time,
although some notable similarities exist at all
times. A historical viewpoint is needed,
particularly in order to understand that the
definitions of art and beauty vary from time to
time.
In Ancient Greece, what was
symmetrical was considered beautiful. A person,
particularly a woman or a young man, was
beautiful if his features were symmetrical; both
sides of the face were similar and there were no
notable faults to this accordance. Art, in its
form if not content (for it is important to note
that Greek tragedies were full of horror and
cruelty, people going against Gods and ending up
in tragedy), was supposed to follow the same
pattern. For example, in the field of literature
/ theatre this aim at symmetry was summarized in
Aristotle’s
view on theatre: a theatre piece should have a
beginning, middle and an ending. Thus the
beginning should have a worthy ending and
everything should be in order and in its right
place. The view was behaviourist: the clue to
the characters minds’
was in their actions. Of some importance is also
the term
‘catharsis’,
which theatre was supposed to have: where the
audience is left with a satisfied feeling, a
feeling of something soiled being finally
cleansed, a hero put through dark times coming
out golden, untouched, his morals intact through
and through. There was a definite line of
defining art through the
audience’s
eyes
–
as opposed to treating art as a purpose in
itself. Art’s
form had a purpose, and that purpose was
pleasure, and art’s
content had a purpose, and that purpose was
teaching morals.
In medieval
times, this view was painted more vividly and
colorfully as Thomas Aquinas continued on the
theme of beauty: beauty was now harmony and
clarity, and in medieval Europe art was made to
serve the church and was made to commemorate
God. Art, in particular visual arts, still was
defined through the audience, the people. Where
it once had been made for pleasure it now served
as a tool for teaching people, mostly
illiterate, about God. What remained was the
understanding that art had the power to move the
viewer in a profound level. During this time,
from mid-Medieval art to renaissance to baroque
to rococo to neo-classicism, the focus was
shifted from God back to symmetrical form, and
although the ideal form was defined and
re-defined from dark and heavy to pretty and
conscientious, there still was a definite ideal
-- until the 19th century.
In 19th
and 20th century,
the understanding of beauty and of art changed
drastically. Where once there had been clear
definitions for the form as to what can be
considered art, now the demarcation was more
difficult. Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy wrote about
the human psyche and political undercurrents,
Proust, Joyce and Woolf focused on the inner
workings of the mind with their
stream-of-consciousness technique, Picasso,
Monet and Van Gogh changed the visual arts
completely, from showing pictures to showing
emotions, and there were risks taken in the
musical world as well, form changing from tonal
to atonal music, choosing to put the rules on
the shelf for a while. All this was done before
the Second World War, and, indeed, the reason
for these changes can be found in the political
climate. With the rise of democracy in the 19th century
and the line between a servant and a ruler now
blurred, the artist was now free to pursue his
own self through art: he was now free to define
art for himself. He was now an artist:
someone who strives and dies for his art.
Artists were outsiders of the society, they were
observers and commentators (rather like a Greek
choir, if you like). As the individual was freer
and the political climate during the World Wars
was messier it had an effect on art and a lot of
art focuses on the existential despair of an
individual. It is no wonder either that
existential philosophy was born during this
time. As for the form, in modern art there was
no definite pattern, rather, patterns and rules
were made to be broken (which, of course, makes
it a rule in itself). With the rise of the
individual and Freud’s
psycho analysis, art also was able to show ugly
sides of someone whose behavior was beautiful,
thus blurring the line between beautiful and
ugly. James Joyce stated in his first novel A
Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man that
beauty means brokenness: it has to have a
quality that breaks the harmony, and,
consequently, the viewer’s
heart.
From what we can now conclude is
this: there has been a tendency to define art
through its purpose, and where at first the
purpose was in its effect on the audience
–
whether causing them pleasure or making them
understand God
–
now it seems that art has a purpose in itself,
and art defines itself. Curiously enough,
nowadays it seems that art with a clear dogmatic
purpose is considered unworthy, whether it be
causing pure pleasure or teaching black/white
about something. However, what is perhaps most
important to note from the course of history is
that the meaning of both art and beauty has
changed, thus in part justifying a relativistic
view, where nothing can be said for certain.
PART B
–
UGLINESS AND ITS PLACE IN ART WORLD
St. Augustine defined evil as a
lack of goodness, and taking this route, I
suppose we can define ugliness as a lack of
beauty in a painting for example. However, as
beauty in itself was so hard to define, it is
probable that this definition of ugly is
null-and-void to begin with. Moreover, bearing
in mind the Joycean definition of beauty
–
brokenness
–
it is difficult to pinpoint
‘ugliness’,
because if beauty is brokenness, what room does
that leave for ugliness?
The dictionary gives a synonym
for
‘ugly’
–
‘bad-looking’,
ie. something that is not pleasing for the eye.
In real world this might just as well be the
case. You see a person not fit in your beauty
standards and you might think them ugly
–
you see a house in the middle of renovation and
that’s
not beautiful either
–
etc. etc. There is no point in arguing about
whether or not ugliness exists
–
it is difficult to define objectively but we all
definitely know what pleases us and what doesn’t.
I’m
taking a concept realistic view here.
In 20th century
Duchamp, a modern artist, put a lavatory in a
museum and called it art. In their own home, no
one would call a lavatory beautiful, but in
museum, it suddenly was. Did the lavatory change
from ugly to beautiful by changing the context
or did it stay ugly? Can something that is ugly
be ugly when it exists in a beautiful context?
And, if not yes, what purpose can it possibly
serve
–
why change a beautiful context into an ugly one
when there is a whole world filled with ugliness
should one need some?
Goethe was once quoted as saying
‘Art
and Life are different. That is why one is
called Art and one is called Life.’
Although simply put, I think this quote holds
heavy meaning. In context of art, one doesn’t
need practical knowledge. When seeing a
lavatory, it serves the sole purpose of being
there and for being looked at. It
doesn’t
need another dimension; one doesn’t
need to use their common sense to work it. It
exists in a world of its own. Even if one goes
to a modern art museum where one can do
something with the statues, one still doesn’t
do it to further any other purpose than art
itself. With art, one experiences it, but is
still left strangely cold. The
objective-subjective
–dichotomy
exists: the object, piece of art, lures the
viewer, who thinks he does all the work by
watching, analyzing and understanding, when in
reality the object is the one that captures and
manipulates. They both stay passive.
The Heideggerian thought of
In-der-Welt-sein, of being a part of the
world wholly and not being reduced to being a
subject whose only dimension is its subjectivity
seems to be nullified here, but that isn’t
the case at all
–
I’d
rather define art as a safe haven when one is in
need of a place where he can feel and
dare to feel sympathy without constraint. One of
these things he can feel and see and experience
is ugliness
–
either his own faulty ways of thinking or the
ugliness of the piece of art.
Therefore the ugliness in an art
piece is justified because one cannot watch and
analyse it freely in the real world
–
one needs the context of art to observe ugliness
objectively.
Therefore I come
to the conclusion that yes, there can indeed be
things that are ugly in the field of art, and
yes, art itself can be ugly without it losing
any of its ugliness by changing the context.
Next I will try to explain why we should take
interest in this ugliness.
PART C
–
WHY SHOULD WE TAKE INTEREST IN UGLINESS?
Yes, indeed
–
why should we?
There have been different ways of
defining art in the field of aesthetics
–
art defined by context, where something that is
in a museum or respected in the art community is
art; art by the form: something that pleases us
in one way or another; artist’s
view, if a painter (who paints pictures) paints
his home walls he can decide whether or not they
are a part of his oeuvre; the meaning, if it
says something real and true then it is art
–
but these definitions do not help us when trying
to argue successfully for the case of ugliness
in art. Indeed, why on earth should we take
interest? Why can’t
we just watch quaint comedy theatre and listen
to Mozart all day long?
One answer would be that ugly
things happen in life and if we are informed
then we know and hopefully can do something
about it. Morrissey’s
lyrics about handicapped persons might not have
been necessarily pretty but they had an impact
on youth who might otherwise have been ignorant
about it. Knowing about different ways of life
makes one understand life better, which, in
turn, makes one more knowledgeable and
understanding. This helps the community as well
as the individual. This argument is universal
whereas the second appeals to the individual.
There is a term called
‘sublime’
in art world. It is an adjective that can
loosely be translated as
‘other-worldliness’
or
‘supreme
beauty’
–
a piece of art that moves us so profoundly that
it takes us to another, better world. I think
that sublime transcends the terms
‘beautiful’
and
‘ugly’
and therefore something that is ugly can be
sublime and life-changing. This experience is
something that is similar to William James’s
theory of truth where he investigated the pure
experiential way of understanding truth in the
field of religion. Ugly pieces of art or ugly
art (because some even argue that commercial
things, such as pop music, are ugly
–
which is of course silly, as many classical
composers put on a pedestal today were just mere
craftsmen in their time) can be a way to
experience something truly magical, as they are
often so open in their ugliness and in their
vulnerability. It is hard to love something that
is perfect; a flawed object gives room for
empathy and sympathy.
We should take interest in
ugliness because that way the ugliness lifts
itself into another level. The ugly becomes
beautiful when in contact with an audience who
sees it so. Seeing ugliness in art can be a form
of escapism from the ugly of the world. The
reason here is purely egoistical but also
sincere and honest: because taking interest in
art
–
ugly or beautiful
–
can result in transforming the viewer as well.
And what could be more appealing than that? If
life is egoistical desire, as Schopenhauer
argued, then surely it is good to channel this
desire somewhere where it doesn’t
hurt.
Perhaps this is what Ludwig
Wittgenstein meant when he cryptically wrote
that
“Ethics
= Aesthetics”.
They are both subjects that despite our
analyzing, criticizing and problem-solving, we
cannot say anything about them. Words fail us
when used to try to understand transcendental
things: goodness, art, death. Continuing the
Wittgensteinian view,
“There
is nothing that can be said about art that is
better than staying silent”;
we can try to define ugliness, then why it can
exist in art, then why we should take interest
in it, but in the end, there is nothing that
when said can even vaguely resemble the subject
it tries to talk about. The reason one should
take interest in ugly art is in its possible
impact on a person in the purest level, but if
one does take interest, he does it for and by
himself and not when forced from outside
–
as personally he defines the things, ugliness
and beauty, that he takes interest in.
Silver
Petar Penev (40)
II topic
Theodore Adorno claimed that progress in society
and enlightenment in culture are closely
connected and it is impossible to have one
without the other. However, the application of
this principle in a transnational, multicultural
environment can lead to two different
inferences, which are presented in the books
“The End of History and The Last Man” by Francis
Fukuyama and “The Clash of Civilizations” by
Samuel Huntington. In Hegelian fashion, Fukuyama
envisioned the development of international
relations as a process of constant convergence
in which different customs and worldviews were
both annulled and preserved according to the
concept of ‘sublation’. The view of Huntington
was that different cultural traditions are
extremely difficult to reconcile and that the
inevitable process of cultural interaction will
result in a struggle between a number of
civilizations, each of which is based on a range
of values that often contradict those of other
civilizations. This two contrasting views about
the course of development of cultural
interaction illustrates a larger and fundamental
issue: ‘How are we supposed to organize the
course of international relations in a world
where differences between people are sometimes
more important that the resemblances they
share?’ I intend to analyze this problem by
presenting the views of Immanuel Kant and
contrasting them with my own ideas and the
claims of other prominent philosophers.
Kant
claimed that there are at least three conditions
which are necessary for the establishment of
conditions for peaceful interaction between
states: first, that they share a republican form
of government in which those that pay the price
for the decisions of the political authority
have an opportunity to participate in them;
second, that all states participate in a
federation encompassing all states; and third,
that they adopt the idea of universal
hospitality. These three conditions seem to
satisfy the minimum requirement for the
foundations on which international order should
be organized, but there still remains the
question: ‘Is it absolutely necessary to include
them in our idea about the principles of
organization of cosmopolitan world order?’
According to me, the correct answer is ‘Yes’.
First of all, they clearly protect the rights of
the individuals in the political community by
emphasizing the importance of republican form of
government. Secondly, they seem to give equal
weight to the dignity of each person regardless
of their race, social status or sex. This is
achieved by adopting the view of universal
hospitality – the idea that states are obliged
to treat foreigners according to a set of rules
applicable to all persons, including their own
citizens. And last, these three conditions seem
to be derived by the principles of reason. By
applying them, Kant formulated a concept that
all rational persons should endorse. Since they
cannot resign being part of the group of
rational beings, they have a duty to support
each concept based on these conditions if other
aspects of its structure do not contradict the
principles of reason. Formulating a concept
based entirely on laws of reason is the only
possibility of respecting people as possessing
rationality and morality and, in my opinion,
Kant succeeded in this difficult task.
According to Kant, the view that states should
unite in a state of nations regulated by the
abovementioned conditions is underpinned by a
number of arguments. First, he seems to make a
parallel between people and states being in a
state of nature before submitting themselves to
laws formulated by the public. Since this
lawless condition is characterized either by a
war of all against all (according to Hobbes) or
by inability to reach reasonable consensus about
the problems at hand because of the ‘threat
advantage’ stronger individuals (or states)
have, the principles of reason dictate that
states have to substitute this lawless condition
for the organized state of nations. By doing so,
nations will be able to live together peacefully
without being faced with the constant danger of
conducting war with their neighboring states
which have not accepted the rules of the
international order and are guided in their
actions by the principle of self-interest.
Another argument in support of Kant’s concept is
the idea that both people and nations should be
viewed as autonomous. According to Wolff,
autonomy can be described as freedom and
responsibility - people are free, but they have
the responsibility to constitute their freedom
by formulating rules guiding their actions. They
do not act in complete lack of rules; rather,
they can only act freely if they act according
to laws formulated by their reason. This idea is
supported by Fichte’s understanding of freedom.
According to him, freedom is never absolute, but
always limited and conditioned. The ‘I’ can set
itself up as an individual only if it is
summoned by another individual and if it limits
its freedom out of respect for the freedom of
the other. Similarly, states can be part of a
federation of states (or state of nations) only
if they recognize the freedom of the other
members and limit their own in order to make the
mutual peaceful existence of different interests
possible. The ‘civitas gentium’ is possible only
via the formulation of efficient international
laws regulating relations between states and
defending their autonomy.
However, there seems to be a contradiction
between the ways Kant envisioned the realization
of his concept – in his early pieces of writing
on the problem he stated that it was necessary
for states to settle their internal problems and
then take part in the state of nations, whereas
in later passages he seems to support the idea
that regulating relations between states should
precede the establishment of internal social
order formulated by principles of reason. These
two views make the discussion of various
interpretations of this Kantian concept possible
– both the idea that national problems are more
important than international ones and the view
that serious problems of international political
and social relations should be solved with
priority to the problems of the particular
states. But both this two contradicting
positions seem to neglect the fact that in a
world with constant economic, cultural and
political interaction between all states
national problems can easily become
international ones and international problems
clearly influence the condition of every state
in the world. Only by treating them
simultaneously and by trying to reconcile the
various requirements necessary for their
solution can we hope to tackle them in the long
term.
The
concept of state interaction formulated by John
Rawls is a good example of a theory that
recognizes the need to address these two issues
simultaneously. He divides states (peoples) in
four categories – liberal (applying the
principles formulated in ‘Justice as Fairness’),
decent (illiberal, but unaggressive and not
violating human rights), outlaw (aggressive and
illiberal) and burdened (unable to solve their
particular problems). First, he stated that the
system of international relations should
encompass both liberal and decent nations since
the exclusion of the latter will surely hinder
the progress towards their integration into the
group of liberal people and will make impossible
the establishment of state of nations
encompassing all states. Secondly, Rawls
simultaneously claims that liberal and decent
societies should take the necessary measures
when natural rights of people are not respected
(as in outlaw nations) or where people are
unable to solve the problems they are facing (as
in burdened societies). By following these two
principles he addresses both problems of the
external social order of nations and of the
system of international relations without giving
priority to either. Thus, he formulates a theory
that is able to provide a solution to the
complicated problems of the contemporary world
of transnational politics.
Some
ideas of Max Weber also support the view that
national and international problems should be
addressed simultaneously. He defines the state
as having exclusive control over the legal
application of the means of violence over a
certain territory. However, this claim can be
understood in two different ways – that the
state is recognized to have this exclusive
control or that it actually possesses the means
necessary to establish it. These different
interpretations make it impelling to draw a
distinction between ‘de jure’ and ‘de facto’
states. ‘De jure’ states are recognized as such
by the international community of states even if
they do not actually control the means of
violence in their territory, whereas ‘de facto’
states are the ones that are able to impose the
legal means of violence over a certain territory
regardless of whether they are internationally
recognized as having this capacity. If we give
preference to national rather than international
problems, we may be faced with the perspective
of having different groups claiming to fit
Weber’s definition of a state (de facto), but
lacking international recognition (de jure).
This situation may make it impossible for
governments to deal with separatist and may
endanger not only their authority, but also the
possibility of establishing a state of nations.
However, if we choose to solve only
transnational problems and pay insufficient
attention to the particular problems of certain
societies, we are faced with the same
perspective – inability of governments to assert
their authority and the principles of
international toleration, which results in
failure to achieve the ends this very choice was
made for. Hence, national and international
problems should be assigned equal weight and
neither should have priority over the other.
So we arrived to
the idea that international cooperation is
necessary but possible only in the context of
states being able to deal with their particular
problems. But there still remains the question
how we will achieve that and whether we possess
the necessary means. The progress in various
scientific fields in the past few decades and
the process of globalization which started as a
result of this technical development give us a
clear answer to this question - just cooperation
between states is possible and can be achieved
by the means science gives us. By enhancing our
perspectives and giving us better understanding
of nature and other people it helps us overcome
our prejudices and adopt a cosmopolitan
perspective towards the world and other
cultures. This possibility of science to
overcome national, cultural and social borders
was envisioned by Herder in the 17th
century in his concept about science breaking
national prejudices by making it necessary to
recognize transnational achievements in certain
research fields and by providing a common
‘scientific’ language in which members of
different cultures can communicate and achieve
understanding despite the differences existing
between them. This clearly illustrates the role
of science for creating mutual understanding
that appears crucial for international
toleration. However, this view was questioned by
C. P. Snow in his famous lecture ‘The Two
Cultures’. In it he argued that the aim of the
exact sciences is the convergence of knowledge
and thus they contribute to the establishment of
cultural toleration. In contrast, he claimed
that sometimes human sciences tend to emphasize
differences rather than similarities and thus
they stimulate divergence rather than
convergence. However, this inference fails to
consider the fact that unlike the exact science,
human sciences are not entirely focused on
formulating general and unrevisable laws –
rather, they tend to focus on particular
problems and appreciate the fact that some of
them may fail to fit the general norms that are
established in the scientific community. Thus,
human sciences are not aimed at excluding, but
at including. They respect the differences that
exist between different people and cultures and
tend to preserve them by finding ways to
reconcile the contradictions between them,
rather than make them fit a general norm and
thus destroy their individuality. Thus, they can
serve as an effective means to promote
international toleration and cooperation.
It is clear that
in a world of vast contrasts between different
people and nations international cooperation is
crucial, but possible only by adopting the
principle of toleration. Kant is right in his
claim that ‘in accordance with reason’ our
societies have to support the formation of the
state of nations by placing themselves under
public coercive laws. However, we should try not
to enforce our views about the structure and the
functions of this state of nations in the
process of its establishment. Rather, if it is
supposed to ‘finally encompass all the nations’
, we should try to enhance our perspective by
considering the viewpoints of other nations and
trying to integrate them in a discourse process
that determines the way in which we are to
achieve stable and tolerant system of
international relations. This means that we
should try to overcome our prejudices and
abandon dogmatism in intercultural
communication. This is crucial to the
achievement of peaceful intercultural dialogue
which is a necessary prerequisite for the
establishment of the state of nations. On
philosophical level, dogmatism legitimizes fixed
patterns of thinking and hinders human progress.
On political level, it legitimizes violence
which cannot serve as a basis for the state of
nations. I believe that the Kantian concept
presented in this quotation is devoid of
dogmatism and condemns the use of violence in
international relations.
Silver
Eliza
Tymianska (15)
IV
In this essay I
would like to consider whether the following two
are problematic – the existence of God or the
coherency of the idea of God. First I would like
to think for a moment if the questions about God
are important and why, then if the coherence of
the idea of God is problematic or not and
finally decide if it is more or less problematic
than the existence of God.
Is the question
about existence of God truly important? Maybe
it’s not even worth asking? Since the idea of
God is one of the most important ideas in our
culture, maybe even the most important one, this
question is surely significant. The idea of God
exists as long as human beings do and although
during the centuries it was changing – people
believed in one or many gods (there were mono-
and polytheistic religions), God was severe or
loving, the idea of him was always somehow
present in human life. But ‘somehow’ does not
really tell us anything about the significance
of the idea of God. God is not only present in
our culture but he is very often the central
part of it. People are praying, going to
temples, they try to (or at least they should)
live the way they believe God demands, some are
even able to kill in the name of God. Although
today in Western countries God is not the center
of the culture anymore, we still cannot escape
from the question about his existence – we have
to answer to ourselves whether we believe that
God exists or we believe that it is just a
delusion as some contemporary atheists claim?
It’s not
surprising that philosophers have always been
conducting a dispute about the existence of God.
Right from the beginning in ancient Greece to
today’s world this question is always current.
During the middle ages so called ‘proves’ has
been formulated – the most famous are those of
Saint Anselm and Saint Thomas but there are many
philosophers who tried to refute them and don’t
think those proves actually prove anything. The
dispute is not yet finished and it probably
never will since it’s not possible to prove
whether God exists or not. That’s why many
modern philosophers don’t even try to formulate
any prove (which does not mean they don’t devote
any attention to God itself.)
Nowadays many
people who participate in discussion about the
existence of God claim that question about the
coherence of the idea of God is much more
important and much more problematic than this
about the existence of God. But what do they
mean by ‘coherence’? Many people who believe in
God are aware of the fact that the idea of God
may not be as coherent as they wish. In medieval
times theologians were often considering this
problem, but the questions they asked may sound
a little bit funny for us – they wondered, for
example, whether God could create a stone that
he wouldn’t be able to lift. God is omnipotent
so he should be able to create such a stone. On
the other hand he is omnipotent so he should
also be able to lift every stone. It seems that
the idea of omnipotent God doesn’t really make
much sense.
When we think
about God there are also another attributes that
come to our minds. People regard God as
infinitely good and believe that he made us
free. But if they do so, there are also other
problems: Why is there so much evil in the world
created by infinitely good God? If God knows
everything, how can we be free? If God were
really infinitely good, he wouldn’t let all bad
things happen – there wouldn’t be any wars, any
violence, nobody would ever be hurt. But since
there are wars, hunger, poverty and evil in our
world exists, God cannot be infinitely good.
What’s more, it seems that he’s not good at all
– maybe he is even evil? But we all agreed that
goodness is a part of the idea of God. And the
second question – people believe that God knows
everything and at the same time we think that we
are free. But how is it possible if God already
knows what we are going to do? It seems absurd…
This questions
show that the idea of God may not be coherent,
may not make much sense. And if it doesn’t make
sense, if it’s contradictory, then why should
anybody believe in God? And since there’s not a
lot of people who don’t want to believe in
something that is senseless, questions like this
have always bothered people who believed in God.
Many philosophers tried to answer them to make
the idea of God more coherent. The theodicy of
Leibniz is perfect example of the attempts of
explaining the first question. He agreed that
God is infinitely good and didn’t deny that
there is evil in the world. But as he claimed
there has to be evil in the world, human being
must have a choice between good and evil
otherwise he would not be free. Of course God
might have created a world where there would be
no evil at all, after all he’s omnipotent but
people living in world like this wouldn’t be
free because they wouldn’t have any choice –
they only could make good deeds. And they
wouldn’t even know they choose the right way as
there would be only one way to choose. So God
created the best world of all possible ones and
it wouldn’t be the best without evil. But this
answer is just not good enough for many people
(we all remember Voltaire who ridiculed
Leibniz’s idea) and many deny that the idea of
God is coherent. This lack of coherence is
nowadays one of the most popular arguments
against the existence of God.
But we’re not
wondering about the coherency of the idea of God
just because it is the biggest problem, because
it is the most important questions. We are doing
this because it depends on the coherence of the
idea of God if he might exist or not. Of course
just because somebody proves that the idea is
coherent, it does not yet mean that God exists.
But if we prove that it is not coherent it would
probably mean that God does not exist. That’s
why we might say that the coherence of the idea
of God is more problematic than its existence
itself, but the existence of God is problematic
as well.
But there is
another issue connected with the coherence of
the idea of God – it may not only be
contradictory itself but may not be coherent
with our knowledge of the world. Many people say
that they don’t believe in God because its
existence does not explain anything. For many
science is enough, belief in God is unnecessary
and actually makes the world less
understandable. Many people say that they don’t
believe in God because science is just offering
much more coherent way of explaining the world.
Of course science does not exclude existence of
God, it doesn’t deny that he exists and it has
never proved neither that he exists or not. But
since science is enough to explain the world,
many people don’t need God. As somebody said –
it’s more important which of the two – science
or religion – creates more coherent, more
convincing picture of the world. And religion is
not offering it anymore – at least not in
Western countries. The Old Testament claims that
world was created in six days, woman was created
from a rib of a man etc. Bible is not the only
way to explain the world, what’s more if we
treat it literally it’s simply wrong. And if
it’s allegory then it may be hard to interpret
it correctly and since we now know how many
times Churches and clergymen were wrong, we
prefer to trust in science which seems to be
much more coherent than the religion.
The existence of
God and the coherence of the idea of God are
both problematic. There are many problems that
seem to deny the coherence of this idea and it
is important to consider whether the idea of God
is coherent or not, because if it isn’t it means
the existence of God is impossible. The question
which of the two is more problematic doesn’t
really make sense to me because it is
irrelevant. We should remember that it is not
the coherence of the idea of God that is the
most significant question – the most important
issue is the existence of God and considering
the coherence is just a way to find an answer to
this question.
Bronze
Kristina Kashfullina
(25)
Topic
III
Must a work of art be
beautiful in order to be a work of art, or may a
work of art be ugly as well? If the latter is
possible, why should we take interest in it?
Art…is a thin peel
that isolates us
from I
love the ugly pictures,
the horrors and
wildness and
why
I do appreciate
shouldn’t it be
beautiful?
That awful illustrations
The things which collocate…
O. Spengler, The setting of
Europe.
The truth.
G.G. Byron
We have
gone too far from the gorgeous ideals of
Renaissance, from the chic of ampere, from the motto
of Oscar Wild – “Art for art’s sake”, but do you
feel like, even after so many years and so many
changes in our conscious, we are still asking each
other the questions of “antithesisic” words “the
ugly art”? And are we sure this words are truly “antithesisic”?
The thing is that the question we are referring to
again is eternal, due to the humanity will hardly
ever find the answer to it. That comes from every
person will still have his own opinion, even if
there would be any cultural dominant, as Hegel used
to call it. The topic of “ugly art” has become
actual nowadays as never else – the society tends to
create a new cultural revolution, to collapse the
old system of ideals and principles on the edge of
the new historical epoch – on the verge of
globalised society. That is why it is essentially
important to turn to that question again in order
not to lose the wisdom of the past or not to
conserve our ideas, not being able to adopt them to
contemporary conditions, not being able to create
our own.
The
problem, which is raised in the question, the
problem of coherence of beauty and art seems
difficult to be discussed even more, thanks to it
was being tried to solve not only by the
philosophers (as “the philosophy is a theoretical
explanation of culture”, according to Spengler), but
by the people of art (“as every work of art is a new
theoretical basement of itself”, according to Hugo),
and somehow or other – by most of us. Thus, the
ocean of already accumulated ideas, conceptions and
theories is so enormous that the only thing left to
do is to look at them one more time and try to solve
it by yourself…
The art doesn’t know what it is
I’m sure that Volter was true, saying
that “all the explanations are coming from the
notions”. And I can hardly try to give my version
of answering the question, if I don’t give the
definition of the art itself. Only when the notion
becomes clear, we are to judge about the content of
the notion, as there are immediately connected. The
thing I’d like to mention that the views on the
problems of art of philosophers and masters of art
should not be opposed, but should be organically
connected and should be considered in synthesis.
Thus
famous culturologers were creating schemes of
understanding art as one of the most important parts
of culture. (The question of correlation of culture
and art is a bit different one that is why we should
not digress on it.) Thus American
philosopher-sociologist Toynbee and Russian
religious philosopher Berdyaev used to explain that
art is the expression of free immanent God’s spirit
that is why it cannot be ugly by the definition.
That is why it is not human’s concern to evaluate
the art’s works, because they were created under the
influence of God. These theories, which are quite
close to each other do not concretize – which work
of art is worth to be called the work of art. That
is why the explanation comes idem per idem, even
obscures per obscurium. Ancient eastern civilization
used o define art as a gift of Gods. The theoretic
of art – Moliere had his own opinion of that art
should not be defined somehow, it should just be
understood by every individuality, but should be
created according some laws. Another point of view
comes from Spengler, but it also admits that every
art, which is created in the time of “culture” but
not at the time of “civilization”, is beautiful – it
simply cannot be ugly. Hegel in his work “Esthetics”
explains that the Absolute spirit realizes itself as
he wishes threw our work, and the items that may
seem to us ugly is above our understanding now, that
is how he comes to the conclusion – culture is the
realization of Absolute spirit and can be understood
differently. Here we come to the point I share
partially – Ung in his book “Archetypes and Symbols”
muses on culture as the reflection of personal
symbols, but one phrase is worth being mentioned
here – “The art comes from the free creating person
as the subjective reflection of archetypical symbols
and the reality around him”. Thus let me now try to
give my own definition, based on the experience of
the past generations. As far as I am concerned, the
art is a deeply individual reflection of the
immanent and transcendent world of the creator,
understood exclusively subjectively according to the
emotional and intellectual impressionability.
Because the creator does not speak to the army of
audience as the orator, but he tries to speak to
everyone personally, so to keep invisible “eye to
eye contact”. Thus the art is so much universal and
even eternal that the creators sometimes cannot give
the definition of it, and that is correct – the
wider the notion is, the weaker is its content.
Here I also would like to quote Aristotle, who said
that “you should be very subjective, discussing the
art, but not individual, cause you cannot be simply
objective, thanks to the subject of the discussion”.
As far as
I have tried to give the definition, let me now try
to share my point of view about the paradox or the
normal fact of “ugly art”, based on the very notion.
To create or not to create?
As the art has
two so called “components” – objective (let’s say
the technical – the way the picture was drawn, the
play was performed, the way the song was sang etc.),
and subjective (what is depicted on the picture,
what is written in the book, what the play is
about). So, as I have already said if the art can
and should be created and understood in the most
individual manner, not even talking about the
subjective side, even the objective can be treated
differently, often polarilly different. The manner
of drawing of impressionists and then fovists was
estimated by the society in the most negative way –
they said Mone and Dega didn’t know how to draw
well. The same thing then happened to
abstractionists and primitivists. The modern dancers
are accused of not knowing the classical theory of
dance. But as Beethoven has said “The new and genius
things and trends are born as heresy, and
appreciated only by the descendants”. Now the
picture of Wan Gog “The sunflowers” is the most
expensive picture in the world. That is why what is
considered to be ugly even technically, even in the
way it is presented can be a true art, because it
can simply bring new vision of the world, it can go
ahead its time.
Then
comes the ugly content. I believe the thing you call
ugly can be absolutely beautiful for me. It again
and again repeats the ancient thought that the
beauty is relative.
First let’s define
“ugly” in art. The most correct in my mind will be
the thing that does not collocate our ideals. The
modern standards of beautiful woman would e
considered unbelievable to the people of
Renaissance. Moreover, ugly is something that is
subjectively not pleasant or calls for emotions, not
satisfying you. The works of Goya (“The Mars eating
his son”), Bosch (“The garden of earth
satisfaction”), Remark (“The Western front has no
changes”) and thousands of other classical and
respected works possess some extracts, expressing
horrors, death, sins, ugly bodies and so on.
However, it doesn’t mean they are not worth being
called the art works. Furthermore, they are widely
appreciated, even though they depict unpleasant for
most of human beings symbols and descriptions. Thus,
I can undoubtedly conclude – ugly content doesn’t
prevent people from calling their works “true art”,
and I’m sure they are right. But what do we have to
do with the art works, which are not considered to
be beautiful by everyone? The composer Bah didn’t
hear any of his works played during the whole life.
The authors, who presumably guess they would not be
understood as their works will be considered ugly,
usually have to ask themselves the Hamlet question,
I have put as the title of the paragraph. And in my
opinion the answer is – to create. The work of art
must not be beautiful, this is not the imperative,
even if the ideals of time insist on it. For
example, the early Christian works were totally
against the ideals the ideals of Roman beauty. The
medieval works of the religious themes are full of
blood and horror, following the motto “Memento mory”,
but aren’t they the real art works, spiritually
beautiful?
The
functions of art are not only entertaining and
bringing peace into person’s soul – they are
polyhedral as the art itself. One of the functions
is to tell the truth, to reflect the inner and outer
world, as I have already mentioned, to fix the
reality. Art, purified from the moments, which
cannot be excepted without closed eyes and pain in
heart looses the very nature of art – it stops being
different! It becomes limited and turns into
one-sided embodiment of culture.
For what the bell
tolls?
The ugly art is a
subject of fierce argue not only because “ugly” is
different for everybody, but moreover, because it is
that force, by the way very powerful, that creates a
great variety of clashes in cultural world, in our
minds and souls. The discussed question asks “why
should we take interest in it”. Let me disagree with
such a word used as “should”. That is true. Nobody
is obliged. But we can. Omar Hayam used to say that
– “stop thinking of the art if you want to stop
thinking at all”. As far as I feel the ugly art
tolls for thinking. Beautiful story impresses us, it
raises our mood and purifies our heart may be from
aggression and envy. But the beautifully written
books of Kafka, Dickens, and Dreiser, which contain
the description of evil and ugly truth make us
oppose, think and fight mentally. I can’t but
mention – art without beauty is not an art, it loses
its origins, it turns into a science of morality.
However Konfuziy in his “Thoughts of the state”
mentioned an unforgettable wisdom – “the power is in
the balance”. Thus the balance of two opposing and
at the same time correlating universes can help us
develop.
Leo Tolstoy used to
write that the real author describes real things. So
imagine, the awful, truly ugly things happen in the
some state, in the culture, in the nature. Should
the writers keep silence? So the ugly art tolls for
the truth.
The art of Daly and
Ray Bradbury imagine new worlds, numerous science
fiction authors try to analyze the existing facts
and predict the future. Their aim is to warn future
generations about the reality they can face if
continue to follow this or that trends. Such
creators follow the Socrates method “from against” –
show the ugly thing in order people to be afraid to
behave badly. Thus the ugly art tolls for the
future.
The secret to define
The thing that is
really important to touch upon is the greatest
problem – the problem of defining the ugly art.
Except the subjective emotions and appreciation art
as ugly I must admit – there is almostly no ugly
art. All the examples, mentioned above, all the
works of art, contending ugly episodes follow the
noble aims. They can even reveal the inner world of
the creator, still teaching us something, showing
the real or imaginary situation – the philosophers
are not afraid of this, J.P. Sartre and his work
“Nausea” is one the brightest examples. Thus the
answer on the topic question is dualistic – yes,
there may and should be ugly art, if it is created
ugly or contents unpleasant ideas and fiction
symbols. But at the same time, no, down to such kind
of art is not ugly; it is sometimes even more
beautiful then sweet images, if to take beauty as a
philosophical category.
The thing, worth
mentioning here – finding truly ugly art is
practically pretty difficult. I keep the criteria
of “opened idea”, but I believe – art, created under
pressure, or by somebody’s order is ugly. It remains
art, however, because it is still individual, but it
loses freedom. Not in the existential meaning of
this category, but in the understanding of such
philosophers as P. Sorokin. The unique finding has
recently been made in Egypt – on the back of the
statue the sculptures wrote “I am sorry for this
statue, because I was made to do it like this by my
master”. The frightening lines about such kind of
art are in sonnet 66 of William Shakespeare:
…
And art, made tongue-tighted
by authorities,
And folly doctor-like
controlling skills
…
The very delicate
question, whether such things as drawing with the
blood of killed animals or creating sculptures from
rubbish is worth being called art, even if it is
ugly. The matter here is in the very thin boundary
that distinguishes true art from the insanity or the
desire to seem eccentric or to make money. This
problem has to be solved individually by everybody,
but I’m sure, Toffler was true, saying that “Time
has a power to define true from false”. The thing,
left to us, is to create this time by our deeds.
Will the ugly art
save the world?
The famous phrase of
Russian writer Dostoevsky – “The beauty will save
the world” is a wonderful wisdom to follow, but let
me be brave or insolent enough to change it and
affirm that today’s world is not so ugly as someone
thinks and the dialectical law of “unify and
struggle of oppositions” should really work. I’m
sure ugly art, revealing the truth, opening eyes,
predicting and warning is the thing we need now to
sober ourselves from the art, turning into
entertaining industry. May be then we are to
understand the gorgeous ideals of Renaissance, the
chic of ampere, the motto of Oscar Wild in another
way and find the authentic world of art as a
heritage, time has carefully saved for us.
Bronze
Luiza Pasca (51)
III.
Apology of the
Expressive Ugly
In a century of
speed, when all people complain that they do not
have time, what can be the meaning and purpose
of Art? Nobody seems to be able to go to an art
exhibition or to read a book, simply because they do
not have time. For some people, educated or
non-educated, Art presupposes a suspension of time
(even if they are not conscious of this effect);
when one looks at a painting or reads literature,
then one gets access to an unconscious, unseen part
of oneself – a new “time”, perhaps the real one, the
interior duration, in Bergson’s terms, where
everything is considered as intuition, intensity of
feeling – and manages to forget, even for a short
period of time, that the outside world, with the
problems it involves, exists. For other people, art
is a mere waste of time, in the sense that it does
not involve a practical result or a pragmatic
activity. They consider that everything that is
devoid of a pragmatic core is pointless and
invaluable. Can it be so? Can Art really mean
nothing?
For anyone who
considers the human being as the most evolved of all
animals and denies the existence of a spirit or
soul, the answer seems obvious. Although the
problematic of what defines a human being is very
complicated, one thing is quite clear: humans have
created culture, and culture involves Art, thus Art
must have a meaning, even if only for that undefined
and ineffable thing that resides in us and we like
to call spirit.
Art seems to
transcend reality; the meaning of the concept of art
itself becomes hard to be caught in words. Art is
generally regarded in close connection with the main
categories of aesthetics: the Beautiful and the
Ugly, and a usual definition of art would include a
reference to one of these: art as a form of
spiritual manifestation, an expression of beauty.
The debate about a definition of art is not over,
but is this essay shall try to follow a new
perspective over art and shed a new light over the
problem: Art itself should not defined as
subservient one aesthetic category or another; art
transcends these categories and adumbrates itself as
superior to these, encompassing both. Art may be
regarded as beyond good and evil (to use
Nietzschenian terms), as beyond beautiful and ugly,
but closely related to meaning – a form of
significance. The value of art does not reside in
the aesthetic distinction between Beautiful and
Ugly, but in the meaning it encompasses. Of course,
then comes the question, what does meaning
mean? Are there grades of meaning, which may become
criteria to asses a work of art? These questions do
not make the real subject of this paper, although we
shall encounter some points of view regarding these
problems as well. Categorical answers cannot be
given, only subjective ones, because art has a
personal meaning for each and every one of us, and
thus subjectivity becomes an obstacle in giving a
certain answer. We shall consider, generally, that
meaning implies both manifestations of the intellect
(is the work of art capable to invite us to
meditate?) and affects, strong emotional impressions
that are provoked by the mere looking at of a work
of art – relevant for the interior dynamism of the
intuition (in Bergsonian meaning) and also stimuli
for the intellect.
1.
Art in connection with Truth and
Knowledge
Art becomes the
center of a problematic, in relation with knowledge:
can art offer real knowledge? Can this be its real
function? Plato and Nietzsche offer two antagonistic
points of view over knowledge and thus over truth,
which may lead us to conclude over (at least one of
the) functions of art.
The simplest idea
that most of us have if art is that it presupposes
Beauty. From Plato’s point of view, Beauty is an
immutable, eternal and self-consistent Idea, Form,
situated beyond the visible world; he considered
that Beauty is of the same value with Truth, two
forms that immediately follow and “obey” the supreme
Idea, that of Good. But for Plato, beauty in art is
simply a pointless, a vacuous imitation of the Idea
of Beauty. He places Art at the second level of
imitation. First, there is the world of the
immutable Forms, which our own, so-called “real”
world imitates. But Art imitates our world, so it
only shows us the copies of copies. Through art,
people do not free their souls from this world
(supreme goal in Plato’s view); on the contrary,
they only deepen themselves into falsity, fakeness,
strengthening the bounds of the soul to matter.
For Nietzsche, the
truths of human beings are only illusions, metaphors
of which people have forgotten to be such. He
explains that at the dawn of humanity the ancestors
have created these truths in order to be able to
survive (especially in a spiritual way), and this is
perfectly comprehendible, if we imagine the first of
our ancestors paralyzed with fear and wonder
regarding the world that they knew so little about
and that seemed to overwhelm them. Nietzsche further
states that all truths are relative and that there
is no such thing as an absolute, general truth (thus
totally opposing Plato’s view). People make their
own truths, depending on their needs and on the
strength with which the will of power manifests
through them. The real creator of values and truths
is the Uebermensch, whom weaker people must
turn to.
To draw an immediate
conclusion, it seems that if all concepts and values
are relative, it results that there is no absolute
Beauty and no absolute Ugliness, to which we may
turn for comparisons. Where does art find its
essence then?
Also, Nietzsche seems
to be giving an explanation of the beginning of
mythical and religious beliefs. As the history of
religions tells us, myths were of the highest
importance in the life of the primitive human – they
were explanatory tales about the gods and the
activities people were obliged to do in order to
have a safe, regulated life and be in harmony with
the nature and the whole universe. Thus the people
did not complain about anything, if the gods had
left it be so. Their myths brought them consolation
and serenity. Myths are the base of religious
doctrines and furthermore, for the first cultural
manifestations. Could myths be placed at the base
the first literary manifestations? Considering the
hindu ancient writings or even the works of Homer
and Hesiod, which contained the cosmogony myths, it
can be asserted that myths played a big role in the
development of culture and implicitly, in that of
art.
Thus could have art
taken further the role of the myths, that of
ensuring spiritual survival? In other terms: What is
the role or function of art for the human being?
Following the next points of view, we shall arrive
to our conclusion.
2. Homo symbolicum
Paul Ricoeur seems to
think that meaning, significance, describes our
deepest nature: we are conscious beings, capable of
giving meaning to things, and to translate and
perpetuate this meaning through expression.
Expression may take various forms, as we can
distinguish various forms of art, but the form that
has the ability to easily encompass and transmit
meaning is the image. Even a literary work of art
transmits its meanings to us through images, through
symbols; this type of communication is very
complex, and presupposes a multi-level organized
meaning. On one hand, the author of a work of art
wishes to encompass a certain meaning into a certain
image, but the viewer or reader may not interpret
that particular image in that certain way, because
an interpretation always presupposes making
reference to one’s particular view over life, to
one’s particular nature. On the other hand, a work
of art may be the result of “inspiration”, this
meaning that the artist does not consciously gives
significance to his artistic images, and that they
are the result of some subliminal mechanisms, or of
a divine consciousness that uses the artist as an
instrument and the creation of the artist as a
mundane expression (this was widely believed in
Antiquity, if we are to think of the Muses or
daimonions which inspired the ancient poets and
musicians).
Therefore, these main
considerations conduct only to relativism and
perspectivism, which lead back to Nietzsche and to
his point of view from above.
3. The Dasein and the
Light of Art
As suggested by the
point of view expressed above, the concept of
meaning can also be regarded in connection with
Aristotle’s concept of telos, to which
Heidegger gave an interesting and original
interpretation in his theory about the Being and the
Dasein. The Dasein is defined as that specific form
of manifestation of the Being, which is capable of
making inquiries about the Being itself. The Dasein
is able to identify, to recognize the different
purposes, meanings of all other forms of
manifestation of the Being.
Heideggers regards
art as a form of aletheia, where the earth,
the world, the human and the divine meet, where the
two poles, two constituents of all things dual
nature of all things fuses and is perceived as
unity; this doesn’t mean that the two antithetic
components of unity lose their shape, but that the
tragic, eternal conflict between them becomes
visible (in the sense that it can be clearly
perceived) into this “open space”, non-ensconced
anymore. Heidegger regards the Greek aletheia
as defining a state of non-ensconcing, where the
true being of things comes to the surface and can be
“seen”, perceived consciously. Aletheia has
often been translated as “truth”, but truth becomes
for Heidegger a state, a context where
the being of things becomes “visible”. Thus for
Heidegger Art offers the ideal “place” where the
Being of things (represented in paintings or
suggested by words - but he had in mind mostly
paintings) emerges and allows the Dasein to actually
be the Dasein – to become aware of the true
significance of all mundane things.
Thus art becomes the
cure for alienation. The estranged person may become
itself again through art, regaining all the lost
significances of things and of itself.
Conclusion: Art as a form of survival
through meaning
A work of art seems
not to admit a single interpretation, we are free to
give our own interpretation, depending on the way we
see things. It is true that we can see things
differently at different times, but perhaps that is
the genius of art: it encloses stimulates not only
our emotional faculties, but also our intellect,
helping us to see the same thing from many
perspectives. All relativism may be for the best: if
the world we see is in flux (ta panta rhei,
as Heraclitus wisely asserted), how can we get
knowledge of things, if they do not have an
immutable essence to which we could have direct
access to? Perhaps a solution is trying to see
things from all perspectives, and since we cannot
reach that “all”, we could take knowledge of as many
perspectives as we can, to as many sides of that
thing as we can. Therefore, ugliness may be just
another perspective over a thing or a situation, as
beauty also. Why should the works of art reproduce
only beautiful things? Should we despise and refuse
to take into account an ugly work of art as a form
of art, just because it represents things in a
another light?
Art may be a helpful
“tool”, to adopt a pragmatic view, in one’s process
of constructing his life. The meanings revealed
through art can be very useful and help us perform a
metanoia, a change of mentality and
perspective in our own advantage.
Apart from this, when
the rapid flow of time seems to give birth to
illness among the people, Art may be considered one
of the last forms of spiritual survival. In a world
of nihilism, where the man is “condemned to be
free”, free to interpret and give meaning, meaning
relevant for his own condition, art is a subtle form
of communication and may help us in remembering what
the world and our specific way of being are all
about: giving sense and cultivating our spirit. Art
may still encompass all lost meaning and may reveal
the old values that modeled our cultural being and
that may be contained in what C.G. Jung’s calls
collective unconsciousness; through writing, these
meanings unconsciously receive expression; through a
symbolic lecture, old, forgotten meanings can be
brought forth again and re-interiorized, under a new
light, but nonetheless most useful for us.
In the end, perhaps
art should not be regarded only as a form of
expression of the beautiful, but just as a form of
expression.
Mention
Topic II
Ayse Dilek Izek (4)
ON A WALK, IN THE
COMPANY OF KANT
“No man is an
island,” John Donne once famously declared. What he
probably failed to foresee at the time, however, was
that this well-known maxim would, in an age of rapid
globalization, be re-interpreted and extended to
include not only men but also nations. Dominated by
the dissolution of boundaries and the spread of
shared perceptions, the modern world obliges nations
to understand, interact with, and learn from each
other. Although on a much greater scale, such a
setting resembles that of the initial organization
of individuals into societies and the ultimate
emergence of states. The surrender of personal
liberties parallels the sacrifice of national
sovereignty just as the individual’s subjection to a
set of societal rules and regulations is similar to
the state’s subjection to international law. Where
survival depends on collaboration, super-structures
of human existence emerge; and today’s global world
is certainly no exception.
The need for the
establishment of a governing body superior to the
individual finds its roots, according to Thomas
Hobbes, in the human urge to protect oneself from
those who are more powerful. Our ‘natural state’ is
rather animal-like and one in which the extent of
our rights are determined by the amount of our
power; thus a complete surrender of personal
liberties to the state in exchange for stability
stands out as more preferable. The nature of our
“savage freedom” engenders in us an inclination to
subject ourselves to certain guidelines that
facilitate a joint existence while preserving
individual liberties in our private sphere. Several
checkpoints -enumerated by John Stuart Mill as a
pluralistic parliament, a constitution, and
universal suffrage- work to establish a clear divide
between the public and private spheres of life.
Whilst the state of “lawless freedom” promises
nothing but chaos and violence, the state -even when
it takes the form of a totalitarian regime which
Hobbes named Leviathan- ensures order and
protection despite the required limitation of
liberties. Hobbes’s argument that even a bad
government is better than no government prevails as
the latter only brings an unchecked violation of all
rights whereas the former guarantees the lawful
exercise and preservation of at least some. The
sacrifice of a portion of our individual freedom
brings with it greater benefits that serve to
compensate for the state-induced loss of liberties.
This relationship
between the individual and the state is best
described in Jean Jacques Rousseau’s Social
Contract, in which he entrusts both parties of
the agreement with certain duties and obligations
towards each other. A voluntary shift of power from
the individual to the state as the representative of
the ‘general will’ is necessary in order for the
individual to obtain and maintain certain liberties
that would otherwise be left to the hands of an
unrestraint authority. In dismissing the idea of the
‘noble savage’, Kant asserts that the need for
organized society and lawfulness emerges as an
undeniable fact wherever and whenever individuals
are forced to live together.
While the need to
interact, communicate, and cooperate always existed
between humans -thereby leading to the establishment
of states-, the emphasis placed on international
relations gained momentum as states were forced into
frequent contact through trade and diplomacy. As the
abolishment of both physical and ideological borders
between nations continues and globalization brings
states closer at an astonishing pace, the regulation
of international relations becomes more and more
important –and, according to Kant, resembles that of
interpersonal ones. Just as nation-states and
organized society are institutions founded by and
yet situated above individuals, an institution with
jurisdiction over individual governments is equally
compulsory.
The same urge that
drove diverse groups of individuals to establish
collective super-structures is at play in terms of
the organization of the international society. The
forfeit of national sovereignty and subjection to
international law emerge as the only two milestones
that would eventually lead to a world in which peace
and cooperation reign. The European Union, which has
succeeded in ‘making war physically impossible’ on a
continent that witnessed insensate bloodshed and
acrimonious rivalry for centuries, exemplifies this
most evidently. The ‘soft power’ that the European
Union has as a supranational organization that can
offer membership in turn for the observance of
certain criteria is astounding. In compelling states
to adhere to the rule of law, enhance the freedom of
speech, and recognize minority rights, this soft
power proves to be much more efficient than the wars
provoked by “savage or lawless freedom.”
The organization of
divergent nations into a union, however, is destined
to face a myriad of complications that stem from
discriminative attitudes and national pride. Similar
to individuals who are reluctant to forgo their
personal liberties and surrender them to the control
of the state, nations appear unwilling to give up on
national sovereignty and perceive globalization as a
threat to their natural and cultural identities. The
‘clash of civilizations’ seems just as likely to
become the product of the modern era as ‘perpetual
peace’. The European Union suffers from enlargement
fatigue as its members are reluctant to merge with
those who have been labeled ‘the others’ for
centuries. Xenophobia, racial prejudice, and
intolerance towards different cultural practices
remain among the domineering dynamics of many
societies. National pride prevents citizens and
governments from accepting higher authorities that
mediate international law. The United Nations fails
to render its jurisdiction consequential in the face
of superpowers determined to further their interests
at the stake of individual lives.
Such problems force
humanity to take detours from its march “Toward
Perpetual Peace” and paint a pessimistic
portrait of the current human condition. What
Francis Fukuyama called “the End of History”
now proves to be the beginning of a series of
challenges mankind has yet to face. It is, however,
vital to preserve a sense of optimism balanced with
realism while facing these challenges. Dreams of an
unattainable utopia serve only as distractions while
an Orwellian pessimism detracts from our ambition to
strive for the better.
Nationalistic
sensitivities must be reconciled, equality and the
promotion of tolerance must be emphasized while
breathing life into a “state of nations” and
designating the fundamental tenets of a Social
Contract between states. The allure of a global
union must not only depend on economic benefits of
membership but also incorporate a willingness to
cooperate and a focus on similarities instead of
differences. The establishment of supranational
organizations such as the European Union and the
United Nations is, without a doubt, an initial
materialization of Kant’s ostensibly idealistic
notion of a “state of nations”. Their perfection
into egalitarian arbitrators of international
justice and pioneers of global prosperity could pave
the way to what he called a state of “perpetual
peace” in which individuals are united not under
different nationalities but as citizens of the
universe. It seems that we will continue to set our
clocks according to the timing of Immanuel Kant’s
walks in the future just like the housewives of
Konigsberg did centuries ago.
