Chapter VI: The Ideal.
§ 121.
(4) In order to complete the discussion of this first class of goods—goods which have an essential reference to beautiful objects—it would be necessary to attempt a classification and comparative valuation of all the different forms of beauty, a task which properly belongs to the study called Aesthetics. I do not, however, propose to attempt any part of this task. It must only be understood that I intend to include among the essential constituents of the goods I have been discussing, every form and variety of beautiful object, if only it be truly beautiful; and, if this be understood, I think it may be seen that the consensus of opinion with regard to what is positively beautiful and what is positively ugly, and even with regard to great differences in degree of beauty, is quite sufficient to allow us a hope that we need not greatly err in our judgments of good and evil. In anything which is thought beautiful by any considerable number of persons, there is probably some beautiful quality; and differences of opinion seem to be far more often due to exclusive attention, on the part of different persons, to different qualities in the same object, than to the positive error of supposing a quality that is ugly to be really beautiful. When an object, which some think beautiful, is denied to be so by others, the truth is usually that it lacks some beautiful quality or is deformed by some ugly one, which engage the exclusive attention of the critics. (§ 121 ¶ 1)
I may, however, state two general principles, closely connected
with the results of this chapter, the recognition of which would seem to be of
great importance for the investigation of what things are truly beautiful. The
first of these is (1) a definition of beauty, of what is meant by saying that a
thing is truly beautiful. The naturalistic fallacy has been quite as commonly
committed with regard to beauty as with regard to good: its use has introduced
as many errors into Aesthetics as into Ethics. It has been even more commonly
supposed that the beautiful may be defined as that which produces
certain effects upon our feelings; and the conclusion which follows from
this—namely, that judgments of taste are merely
subjective—that precisely the same thing may, according to
circumstances, be both beautiful and not beautiful—has
very frequently been drawn. The conclusions of this chapter suggest a definition
of beauty, which may partially explain and entirely remove the difficulties
which have led to this error. It appears probable that the beautiful should be
defined as that of which the admiring contemplation is good in itself.
That is to say: To assert that a thing is beautiful is to assert that the
cognition of it is an essential element in one of the intrinsically valuable
wholes we have been discussing; so that the question, whether it is
truly beautiful or not, depends upon the objective question
whether the whole in question is or is not truly good, and does not depend upon
the question whether it would or would not excite particular feelings in
particular persons. This definition has the double recommendation that it
accounts both for the apparent connection between goodness and beauty and for
the no less apparent difference between these two conceptions. It appears, at
first sight, to be a strange coincidence, that there should be two
different objective predicates of value, good
and
beautiful,
which are nevertheless so related to one another that whatever
is beautiful is also good. But, if our definition be correct, the strangeness
disappears; since it leaves only one unanalysable predicate of value,
namely good,
while beautiful,
though not identical with, is to be
defined by reference to this, being thus, at the same time, different from and
necessarily connected with it. In short, on this view, to say that a thing is
beautiful is to say, not indeed that it is itself good, but that it is
a necessary element in something which is: to prove that a thing is truly
beautiful is to prove that a whole, to which it bears a particular relation as a
part, is truly good. And in this way we should explain the immense predominance,
among objects commonly considered beautiful, of material
objects—objects of the external senses; since these objects, though
themselves having, as has been said, little or no intrinsic value, are yet
essential constituents in the largest group of wholes which have intrinsic
value. These wholes themselves may be, and are, also beautiful; but the
comparative rarity, with which we regard them as themselves objects of
contemplation, seems sufficient to explain the association of beauty with
external objects. (§ 121 ¶ 2)
And secondly (2) it is to be observed that beautiful objects are themselves, for the most part, organic unities, in this sense, that they are wholes of great complexity, such that the contemplation of any part, by itself, may have no value, and yet that, unless the contemplation of the whole includes the contemplation of that part, it will lose in value. From this it follows that there can be no single criterion of beauty. It will never be true to say: This object owes its beauty solely to the presence of this characteristic; nor yet that: Wherever this characteristic is present, the object must be beautiful. All that can be true is that certain objects are beautiful, because they have certain characteristics, in the sense that they would not be beautiful unless they had them. And it may be possible to find that certain characteristics are more or less universally present in all beautiful objects, and are, in this sense, more or less important conditions of beauty. But it is important to observe that the very qualities, which differentiate one beautiful object from all others, are, if the object be truly beautiful, as essential to its beauty, as those which it has in common with ever so many others. The object would no more have the beauty it has, without its specific qualities, than without those that are generic; and the generic qualities, by themselves, would fail, as completely, to give beauty, as those which are specific. (§ 121 ¶ 3)