>yfw you realize that virtue is just the continuation of aesthetics in the moral plane
How did you conclude that? Great thought btw
>>7836288
virtue is moral aesthetics? I can get behind this
>>7836288
How are you connecting aesthetics and morality? Aesthetics doesn't always imply the good.
>>7836288
Damn, this is actually a really succinct and beautiful way of putting it. Grats anon.
That's a pretty cool thought.
You should write an essay on this topic and post it here.
Not even memeing
Damn
Good work anon. Have this rare Pepe on me--free of charge
>>7836310
Neither does morality necessarily.
In other words, this is water.
>>7836288
That actually makes sense, good one OP
>>7836339
True morality comes from God.
Since he is the only being that can define what is good; it follows that his laws is aswell.
>>7836288
Elaborate pls
>>7836339
But here we are talking about virtue. I'm saying that aesthetics is removed from morality altogether.
>>7836297
I mean how specifically did you realize that thought? What stimulated it? What were you reading?
>>7836367
Beauty is a glimpse into the divine.
>>7836318
Sorry, I only know how to express myself in pithy one-liners.
>>7836421
more aphorisms then
>>7836405
The light within light
The drop of water that makes all water known
>>7836445
Exactly.
>>7836367
Fuck yo bibles. Suck my dick
>>7836288
>>7836288
I'm somewhere in between "well duh" and "fukken brilliant", which means that you hit gold.
>>7836391
It was suggested to the anon by another anon, I'd bet.
But what connection can be drawn between the virtuous and the aesthetic?without vague platitudes, please
>>7836367
Sure thing chief.
>>7836367
I agree
>>7836694
Judaism.
>>7836367
In other words immorality can be defined as what is aesthetically displeasing in God's eyes. Hence homosexuality being sinful. God recognizes moral beauty in the contrast of man and woman.
>>7836694
The same sense perceives beauty and moral good.
>>7836367
The greeks did talk about good and bad without any thought to christianity or judaism.
I'd say our current thoughts of good and bad are actually more due to greek thought than to the ten commmandments or Jesus's teachings.
>>7836288
Veryaestheticpoint
What stands on the wings here though is whether there is any way to escape the subjectivity inherent in aesthetic evaluation (this is my big problem with virtue ethics in general).
What would you say about very aesthetically pleasant systems of morality that eschew the virtue side of things for a more absolute, objective morality? (i.e. the Abrahamic religions)
>>7836835
The idea of "God" existed long before the Abrahamic conception of God
>>7836903
Yeah, but I thought that was what he was implying. It's the greatest example of monotheism still relevant today. Which "God" were you thinking of?
>>7836288
>mfw OP is ego-dead
There's hyperbolized virtue, which aims to convince another of the virtue's existence,
and then there's also sincere virtue, which plays a direct role in one's physical (and mental, as an extension of physical) survival.
>>7836340
I don't have any pepes on me but this deserves a wink.
>>7836288
True, in the sense that both aesthetics and ethics come down to 'muh feels'.
>>7836989
>Implying there's anything wrong with that
>>7836994
Wasn't implying that at all, kinsman.
>>7836766
No no I said without vague platitudes
Goddamn this thread is awful. A witty saying proves nothing.
>>7836694
Both are just lofty terms for 'things I like', the division between these categories of preference is arbitrary. There's not a connection that needs to be drawn but a division to be made if you want to defend such a discrimination.
Which one /lit/?
> If anyone thirsts; let him come to me and drink
All conforms to him or is repulsed by his goodness which reveals the evil in ourselves.
Not rly true because what people consider "aesthetic' can vary from person to person
>>7836367
also this, it's the same trap that makes man imply that our own virtues (or lack thereof) or what saves us from eternal damnation (humanity was already cursed by God since the garden, your virtues alone(without christ) or the most vapor-wave aesthetics you can imagine (and someone else can still disagree with and still call 'ugly' )
Subjective principles are subjective , don't try and equate them with true good and evil (which are much more tangible and objective a concept that most people still can't get right)
Praise Jesus
>yfw ethics and aesthetics and one
>>7837044
So why are the Christians coming out of the woodwork for this? If anything the origins of virtue and aesthetic being unified in a single arbitrary source (for indeed aesthetics are varied and subjective) reeks of relativism.
>>7836288
NO SHIT M8
LITERALLY COMMON GREEK SENSE
>>7836288
>dubs confirm
>>7837072
I don't know why they do what they do desu.
>>7837072
Because it arouses the suggestion that Christian morality is simply God's ideal aesthetic.
>>7837072
What OP was referring to is Aristotelian virtue ethics, which is relative by definition.
Religion anchors the assertion into the objective world by virtue of morality being defined by the will of God and not by the opinion of man (see: >>7837054).
>>7837089
God has pretty good taste desu.
>>7837075
no really, isomorphism between beauty and virtue was a pillar of ancient greek thought
>>7837110
I agree
>>7836288
Tfw when aesthetics and ethics can be elucidated through knowledge of the will.
>>7836288
Having slept over this, this idea explains so neatly moral ideas like courage, bravery, self-sacrifice & other stuff that doesn't quite fit into the "self-interested animal" model of a human.
You could say that our sense of aesthetics separates from the animals, as we can assign aesthetic values to our behaviour as well.
Feudal Japan took the idea of moral aesthetics the farthest. Just read Hagakure and the death poems of the era, see the concept of Hara-kiri.
You can't just assign any kind of morality on people and expect them to passionately follow the dictums. You need to create aesthetic morals. The Greeks understood this. The Romans understood this. The European feudal lords understood this, with the chivalric code. Victorian England understood this, with the idea of the Gentleman. The Chinese understood this, with the Mandarin system.
The aesthetic moral system of our time(which has fallen into disrepair and this is what drives the reactionaries, they see it but they don't realize that returning to the old aesthetics isn't enough, you need to create new ones) dates back to the French revolution, which gave us the moral ideals of Freedom, Equality and Fraternity, combined with the old idea of Democracy, which have been the backbone of the Western moral aesthetics of the Modern era.
>>7836386
Not if you take the larger view of ethics, as opposed to the small view you find in utilitarianism or deontology. Then aesthetics is very much within the ethical domain.
>>7836752
Except the bible (assuming you aren't an idiot and look into the oldest known translations) says nothing against homosexuality.
>>7836288
you've got it backwards homie. aesthetics are the manifestation of ethical-superego in artistic production.
>>7838022
Found the faggot
>>7838022
besides the two cities of faggots that got crushed by a meteor
>>7836903
Only if you are referring to the Zoroastrians or the Egyptians. If you mean in the Aristotelian or Stoic sense then you are stretching the idea of God to be untenable. There is a reason why people called Spinoza an atheist in spite of his talking about God.
>>7837072
Truth, Goodness, and Beauty, senpai.
>>7837044
If you read After Virtue you can see
rip a new hole for the emotivists.
>>7837069
>Not rly true because what people consider "aesthetic' can vary from person to person
So then it's exactly the same as morality?
What people consider to be truth and what is truth are not the same. Just because people disagree does not mean there is no standard.
>>7838034
And what words are used in Hebrew which condemn homosexuals in Genesis?
>>7837945
Dude all of those things fit into self-interest in a probabilistic universe where humans live in societies that reward displays of altruism.
>>7836288
nice
>>7838061
Not anywhere as neatly and oh-so-humanely.
Seppuku has zero rational basis
>>7838130
Honor-compelled suicide can be rational in a society that's highly dependent on rigorous control of behavior.
>>7836288
Seems like this idea is itself beautiful, likely why it struck a cord here.
But we should start with a joint definition of beauty.
Maybe courage and helping others is virtuous for more inherent reasons, but their beauty happens to be an added benefit. It is beautiful to help someone back on their feet, but that might not be what makes it virtuous. I think the virtue arises from reducing their suffering, helping them become their best self (which can be beautiful ), etc.
If beauty is that which gives us a particular feeling of awe or enhancement, I think we can quickly divide virtue and aesthetics. Virtue is often very ugly, helping a sick person clean their assholes for example, but others may yet call this beautiful.
I don't know, but it's a conversation worth having.
>>7836288
How do you account for actions which you find personally disgusting but nonetheless are moral.
GOD DONT REAL
>>7836288
nah
hasn't everyone had this thought?
>>7839294
Obviously, if they're disgusting, they're not moral.
>>7839382
Shitting is disgusting
>>7839387
Shitting is a gray area, morality pertains to how people relate to each other.
>>7838060
Homosexuality is a recent concept. Sexual relations between same sex is condemned in both old and new testament.
The word used isn't a single word, it's a bunch of dudes saying how they want to fuck the two angels and not the virgin daughters.
>>7839382
Is someone who eats a disgusting food the same as someone who shoplifts?
>>7836288
that doesn't mean anything
you can just replace the words "virtue" and "aesthetics" with the word "good" and you'd have as profound a statement.
>>7840077
Quiet, you don't want to spook them. It would be extremely painful.
>>7840092
you're a /lit/ guy
>>7836288
>go on 4chan to shit post
>See this
Thank you anon
um no
It's fucking embarrassing how so many people ITT are unironically acting like this is some brilliant insight. This is just slightly more clever than "what if colors are different duuude".
Also, it's obviously disproved by beautiful things that are immoral.
>>7840145
>Also, it's obviously disproved by beautiful things that are immoral.
That isn't what he's saying though. He is referring to 'moral beauty'. He's saying the same structure or nature that presides over aesthetics is present in morality.
Without further clarification this is basically just saying 'the good makes things good'.
>>7836288
Meaningless language.
Virtue is founded on universals.
>>7840145
It's just a nice way of phrasing a thought.
>>7840145
>it's obviously disproved by beautiful things that are immoral.
way to miss the point, silly
>no one here has read wittgenstein
Except maybe the op
I'm disappointed
>>7840145
its really embarrassing that you dont realize the point of the post
aesthetics is the determining of which states of being are preferable over others
same with ethics
this has been discussed since the greeks desu senpai
>>7839440
>homosexuality is a recent concept
>condemned in the old testament
??? what is your definition of recent familyman
I think truth, goodness, beauty and meaning have always been intimately related yet distinct.
>>7840741
Homosexuality and same sex sexual relations are a different thing. Homosexuality is an exclusive sexual orientation ("I only want to fuck lads"). Fucking lads is just fucking lads and can be done within different contexts like identifying as bisexual or even straight, but in the olden days the division was more often made in the active/passive categories. Getting fucked meant you were a bitch but fucking someone else didn't, for example.
>>7840872
I miss the time when fucking lads was just fucking lads.
