Kalos (καλος): The beautiful. Also carries an added dimension of nobility.
Buddhism: Advocates detatchment from the material world in order to transcend suffering. One should be able to let go of the feelings that grip us and the material that attract us.
From the 2 definitions above, it would appear that they cannot be reconciled. This is a problem for me since I am strongly moved by beauty and yet I am still a Buddhist. The beautiful/noble invokes in me passions that motivates me towards perfection. It makes me pass over the crass and vulgar while I strive towards that end in all I do. The Nietzschean concept of the beautiful is exactly the same as what the ancient Greeks expounded - beautiful and noble at the same time. It is also what I have adopted. But what is it about this Καλος that attracts me so? I believe central to my desire for Καλος is my Ερος. Much like Cyrus, I'm very moved by the abstract, metaphysical forms of beauty that exists. Never mind what the eye sees. It's what the mind perceives that matters. As such I understand that nobody can ever meet that kind of standard. One has to be the Platonic form of beauty in order to satisfy me.
So maybe I satisfy one part of being a good Buddhist - no strong attachment to the material. But I'm still, essentially, an erotic man. Καλος moves me. I can't help but have my innermost feelings roused by it. Buddhism asks for a person who is able to let go. I still cannot do it. In this respect I can fully empathise with Anakin in Starwars. The only way I can reconcile these 2 at the moment is that Nirvana is the most beautiful thing that can ever exist. Does this imply that in trying to achieve Nirvana I have to be the most erotic person? In achieving true beauty, I might have reached the point when it doesn't matter anymore. Maybe Hegel can explain this up to a certain extent. In trying to know something I must be able to conceive of its opposite. I must know of its negation. Only then will I fully understand what is. Presently, this seems to be the most plausible way of reconciling both.
Saturday, May 28, 2005
Sunday, May 15, 2005
Καλος
"Why do you need beauty to be perfect? Do you want it to be perfect for something else?"
- Haig
The question above was posed to me by Prof Haig after I argued, or at least I tried to, for perfect beauty rather than the crass and vulgar kind that democracies are capable of. Defending Nietzsche has always been a contentious position but at the very least his teachings are close to my heart. Problem is, it wouldn't be such a difficult question to answer if I weren't a vain (slightly) person at all.
"You remind me of Glaucon. He's sort of masochistic in the way he defends justice."
- Haig
As a person I make heavy demands on myself. Do it to the best of my ability or not do it at all. There is no in between. So naturally I demand that certain notions are perfect in themselves or I just reject them. Beauty/Aesthetics is just one of them. Question I've never asked myself was "Why?".
While I want to do things well because I hate to regret, I can't deny that a tiny portion of me wants to satisfy my amor propre. Hence in trying to answer the question, I started to wonder if my want for perfect kalos is an extension of this amor propre, my vanity. All this while I've taken for granted that I want beauty to be perfect for its own sake. Could my vanity actually extend itself to crave perfection of notions such as justice and beauty for my sake?
Each time I come to a conclusion, I suddenly waver and feel that the other position is just as defensible. But deep down inside I really feel that I can really want beauty to be perfect for its own sake. I just wasn't sure how to articulate it.
Having thought about it thus far, it finally dawned on me why I want beauty to be perfect. Beauty in my eyes is an entity, so to speak, that I don't want sullied. I just want it to be perfect for the sake of being perfect. Jeremy likens it to a plebeian appreciating classical music because of its form and architecture. He does not like classical music because he wants to be seen as sophisticated or higher up the social ladder than he really is. I know I like jazz and classical because it gives me pleasure. Not cuz I want to impress some girl or act classy. I just like it. I guess the same can be said of wanting beauty to be perfect. It must be perfect or it isn't beauty anymore. Anything less destroys the foundation and form that is beauty or, more accurately, καλος.
- Haig
The question above was posed to me by Prof Haig after I argued, or at least I tried to, for perfect beauty rather than the crass and vulgar kind that democracies are capable of. Defending Nietzsche has always been a contentious position but at the very least his teachings are close to my heart. Problem is, it wouldn't be such a difficult question to answer if I weren't a vain (slightly) person at all.
"You remind me of Glaucon. He's sort of masochistic in the way he defends justice."
- Haig
As a person I make heavy demands on myself. Do it to the best of my ability or not do it at all. There is no in between. So naturally I demand that certain notions are perfect in themselves or I just reject them. Beauty/Aesthetics is just one of them. Question I've never asked myself was "Why?".
While I want to do things well because I hate to regret, I can't deny that a tiny portion of me wants to satisfy my amor propre. Hence in trying to answer the question, I started to wonder if my want for perfect kalos is an extension of this amor propre, my vanity. All this while I've taken for granted that I want beauty to be perfect for its own sake. Could my vanity actually extend itself to crave perfection of notions such as justice and beauty for my sake?
Each time I come to a conclusion, I suddenly waver and feel that the other position is just as defensible. But deep down inside I really feel that I can really want beauty to be perfect for its own sake. I just wasn't sure how to articulate it.
Having thought about it thus far, it finally dawned on me why I want beauty to be perfect. Beauty in my eyes is an entity, so to speak, that I don't want sullied. I just want it to be perfect for the sake of being perfect. Jeremy likens it to a plebeian appreciating classical music because of its form and architecture. He does not like classical music because he wants to be seen as sophisticated or higher up the social ladder than he really is. I know I like jazz and classical because it gives me pleasure. Not cuz I want to impress some girl or act classy. I just like it. I guess the same can be said of wanting beauty to be perfect. It must be perfect or it isn't beauty anymore. Anything less destroys the foundation and form that is beauty or, more accurately, καλος.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)