On Medium: The Inherent Value of a Godless Universe
Here's an article about cosmicism, pantheism, nature's sublime creativity, and how aesthetics trumps morality in the search for objective values and for a meaning of life.
I believe an aesthetic appreciation of nature or the universe is equally valid and invalid (depending on the frame of reference we're adopting; from our point of view it may be valid, from the universe's it would be invalid) as any other interpretation of it, be it moral, scientific or otherwise.
I'm not clear on what grounds are there to privilege aesthetics over any other perspective, rather than to considerer it just one among many.
It's a question of what survives the philosophical naturalist's reductions, the death of God, and so on. I look at it as a worst-case scenario: if much that we take for granted turns out to be illusory, given the godless indifference of monstrous nature, will there be any basis for respectable values? The fact that nature itself is eminently creative suggests to me the priority of aesthetic values. This is part of the pantheism I'm exploring in some of my writings.
I think pantheism can replace the idea of an external cause of the universe endowed with rational capabilities (whether is called noûs, first mover, god, or what have you) - that infuses the universe with his "grace" - with the idea of a deified nature itself.
Now, what's interesting in this scenario (apart from the fact that we can discard dualism) is that 'god' wouldn't be a rational being, like an architect or a fine tuner - as is traditionally depicted in gnostic philosophy - but it would be more like an artist with "dionysian" attributes, which can account for nature's excesses and 'creativity'. Naturally, it would follow that the supreme standard to judge things is aesthetic, not moral (assuming morality depends on rationality, as rationalists contend).
I infinitely prefer this take over the rationalist one. However, I think both are ultimately unjustified, because of the universe's total lack of any human characteristic.
But that's why I construe the pantheistic divinity as a monster rather than as an artist. The "art" of nature is only ironically like human art. It's pseudo-art because there's no mind or intention behind it. But nature's self-creativity, as in its production of a complex order, can't be denied. So this is a monstrous form of creativity, one that humbles human artistry by showing that sublime creation can be done with no intelligence at all. The deity in question is the cosmicist abomination. Aesthetic judgments of nature should be negative or they should somehow transcend the dichotomy between beauty and ugliness.
Well, I guess it's a question of which metaphors are better for describing what's out there in a universal, global, sense. A monstrous being, infinitely creative, sounds kind of right.
I suppose my main point was that any predicate we award to an object involves some degree of human bias. And so, there's something "off" in every concept as compared with actual things.
I believe an aesthetic appreciation of nature or the universe is equally valid and invalid (depending on the frame of reference we're adopting; from our point of view it may be valid, from the universe's it would be invalid) as any other interpretation of it, be it moral, scientific or otherwise.
ReplyDeleteI'm not clear on what grounds are there to privilege aesthetics over any other perspective, rather than to considerer it just one among many.
It's a question of what survives the philosophical naturalist's reductions, the death of God, and so on. I look at it as a worst-case scenario: if much that we take for granted turns out to be illusory, given the godless indifference of monstrous nature, will there be any basis for respectable values? The fact that nature itself is eminently creative suggests to me the priority of aesthetic values. This is part of the pantheism I'm exploring in some of my writings.
DeleteI think pantheism can replace the idea of an external cause of the universe endowed with rational capabilities (whether is called noûs, first mover, god, or what have you) - that infuses the universe with his "grace" - with the idea of a deified nature itself.
DeleteNow, what's interesting in this scenario (apart from the fact that we can discard dualism) is that 'god' wouldn't be a rational being, like an architect or a fine tuner - as is traditionally depicted in gnostic philosophy - but it would be more like an artist with "dionysian" attributes, which can account for nature's excesses and 'creativity'. Naturally, it would follow that the supreme standard to judge things is aesthetic, not moral (assuming morality depends on rationality, as rationalists contend).
I infinitely prefer this take over the rationalist one. However, I think both are ultimately unjustified, because of the universe's total lack of any human characteristic.
But that's why I construe the pantheistic divinity as a monster rather than as an artist. The "art" of nature is only ironically like human art. It's pseudo-art because there's no mind or intention behind it. But nature's self-creativity, as in its production of a complex order, can't be denied. So this is a monstrous form of creativity, one that humbles human artistry by showing that sublime creation can be done with no intelligence at all. The deity in question is the cosmicist abomination. Aesthetic judgments of nature should be negative or they should somehow transcend the dichotomy between beauty and ugliness.
DeleteWell, I guess it's a question of which metaphors are better for describing what's out there in a universal, global, sense. A monstrous being, infinitely creative, sounds kind of right.
DeleteI suppose my main point was that any predicate we award to an object involves some degree of human bias. And so, there's something "off" in every concept as compared with actual things.