Encountering the Beautiful

Steven Knepper reviews The Vision of the Soul: Truth, Goodness, and Beauty in the Western Tradition, by James Matthew Wilson, at Humanitas Journal.

"There is a modern tendency to reduce wonder to curiosity about how things work. Wonder becomes a state of ignorance, one that can be remedied by inquiry. Francis Bacon, for instance, called wonder 'broken knowledge.' What gets lost in this reduction, though, is a deeper sense of wonder at the mystery of being, wonder at the sheer thereness of it all, at there being something rather than nothing. Martin Heidegger, of course, sought to reawaken us to this mystery, but he also claimed that the reduction of'wonder to curiosity had a much older lineage than Bacon. For Heidegger, this reduction—and the attendant 'forgetfulness of being”—is the faulty foundation for the whole tradition of Western metaphysics…"

#beauty #good #truth

Truth, Beauty and Goodness

The latest issue of the Center’s weekly, The Great Ideas Online (No. 1000), begins this three part discussion, based on a presentation by Mortimer J. Adler at the Aspen Institute in August, 1981.

TGIO is emailed to members.

At the Center’s website you’ll find information on how to Become a Member.

#beauty #good #truth

Dynamic Transcendentals

Daniel B. Gallagher reviewed Dynamic Transcendentals: Truth, Goodness, and Beauty from a Thomistic Perspective (2012), by Alice Ramos, at The Maritain Notebook, American Maritain Association

#good and evil #philosophy

,

Three Degrees of Natural Goodness (Discussion note, Iride)

Michael Thompson at the University of Pittsburgh.

#good

Moral Belief

Philippa Foot at Ron McClamrock.

#good

Good and Evil

P.T. Geach, originally published in Analysis, Vol. 17, No. 2 (Dec. 1956), at the European Society for Moral Philosophy.

#good

Dante and the Blessed Virgin

Curtis L. Hancock reviewed Dante and the Blessed Virgin (2010), by Ralph McInerny, at The Maritain Notebook, American Maritain Association

#art #good

Truth, Goodness. and Beauty

The latest issues the Center's weekly, The Great Ideas Online, Nos. 955-57, discussed this December 1981 lecture by Mortimer Adler.

TGIO is emailed to members.

At the Center’s website you’ll find information on how to Become a Member.

#beauty #good #truth

Lon Fuller reviews Adler's 'A Dialectic of Morals'

Lon L. Fuller reviewed A Dialectic of Morals: Towards the Foundations of Political Philosophy by Mortimer J. Adler at The University of Chicago Law Review (1942).

"If there is anything that distinguishes our ethical thinking from that of former times, it is the disappearance of the notion of man's nature. This is the missing constant in our thought. It is the lack of it that explains the relativism which inheres in all our ethical judgments, for without it, no condemnation of evil can carry real conviction. Jefferson and Marshall would never have defined our present differences with the Fuhrer as a choice between different 'ways of life.' They would have said quite simply that Hitler is wrong. They would have said that man cannot make himself a beast of prey without ceasing to be a man, without losing, in other words, his capacity to enjoy what he seeks to obtain through rapine. They would have regarded Mein Kampf not simply as a wicked book, but as a mistaken book."

Recommended Citation
Fuller, Lon L. (1942) "Review of A Dialectic of Morals: Towards the Foundations of Political Philosophy by Mortimer J. Adler," University of Chicago Law Review: Vol. 9 : Iss. 4 , Article 18.
Available at: http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclrev/vol9/iss4/18

(via Chapman University, Leatherby Libraries)

#good #man #nature

“What are the Great Ideas: Why & Where Do They Really Matter?”

That's the disputed question for the 43rd Annual Philosophy/Theology Symposium at Walsh University, North Canton, Ohio. All events are free and open to the public, and will be held in Betzler Auditorium. No registration is required. The 2018 Visiting Scholar is William Cathers, an Aspen Institute Moderator, Philosopher, Educator, and Mortimer J. Adler Protégé.

Program Schedule

Tuesday, March 13, 7:30 p.m. “Great Ideas We Judge By:”
- Truth – Dr. Joe Vincenzo
- Goodness – Dr. Brad Beach
- Beauty – Dr. John G. Trapani, Jr.

Wednesday, March 14, 7:30 p.m. “Great Ideas We Live By:”
- Liberty – Dr. Will Cooley
- Equality – Dr. Koop Berry
- Justice – Dr. Joe Torma

Thursday, March 15, 7:30 p.m. Art Form: “Great Ideas in the Arts:”
- Literature – Dr. Matt Akers
- Painting – Dr. Katey Brown
- Music – Dr. Britt Cooper

Friday, March 16, 7:30 p.m. Visiting Scholar: Lecture #1
- Will Cathers: “The Great Ideas: Objects of Understanding”
- Will Cathers: “A Socratic Seminar with Walsh Students; Teaching the Great Ideas the Way Mortimer Adler Would Have Taught Them”

Saturday, March 17, 9:00 a.m.* Visiting Scholar: Lecture #2
- Walsh Seminar Students: Anne Monnin & Andy Zmecek: “Mortimer Adler and the Biographical History of the Great Ideas”
- Will Cathers: Disputed Question #43: “What Are the Great Ideas; Why & Where Do They Really Matter?
*Special recognition to Dr. John G. Trapani Jr. given by President Richard Jusseaume

(via Charita Goshay at The Canton Repository.)

#idea #truth #good #beauty #liberty #equality #justice #art #education #MortimerAdler

A lost version of 'Analects' unearthed after 1,800 years

The China Post reported,

"Experts have now confirmed that the texts are the long-lost 'Qi Analects'.

"There are three versions of the Analects, namely the Old, Lu and Qi versions.

"The Qi version differs from the first two in having two additional pieces: 'Knowing' and 'Asking the King.'"

Mortimer Adler wrote of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics,

"In the history of Western moral thought, it is the only book centrally concerned and concerned throughout with the goodness of a whole human life, with the parts of this whole, and with putting the parts together in the right order and proportion."

He went on,

"As far as I know, its only parallel is to be found outside of Western culture in the moral teachings of Confucius, which address themselves to the same problem and which offer a solution to it that also refines the wisdom of common sense--by means of aphorisms rather than, as in Aristotle's case, by means of analysis of and argument."

The Time of Our Lives: The Ethics of Common Sense (1970), by Mortimer J. Adler, p. 236. [footnote omitted]

Chronology, then, is not the only reason to start with the Analects in The Great Books of the East - The Chinese tradition

#Aristotle #GreatBooksOfTheWesternWorld

Kantian Ethics in Gulliver’s Travels: Are the Houyhnhnms Role Models?

Janelle Pötzsch at Philosophy and Literature.

"The aim of Immanuel Kant’s Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals is to ascertain and justify the categorical imperative. I will concentrate on the third part of the Groundwork. Here, Kant wants to show why the categorical imperative is binding for us. The purpose of this part of the Groundwork is to show that we have the faculty of practical reasoning—that we are able to establish ends independent of sensual impulses."

'Plato for plumbers'

Mark Bessoudo's "Writers' Award XI 'technology'" winning essay at New Philosopher.

"Like other engineering students in Canada who are close to graduating from university, I participated in a ceremony called The Ritual of the Calling of the Engineer, a peculiar and somewhat secretive tradition (developed by the British writer Rudyard Kipling, no less) which culminates with each student receiving an iron ring.

"Legend has it that each ring is made from the iron of a bridge that collapsed (twice) into Quebec’s St. Lawrence River in the early 20th century. The disasters were blamed on a combination of negligence, structural deficiencies, and faulty calculations. In all, almost 90 people were killed.

"The ring is therefore meant to be worn as a reminder of our professional commitment to public safety and to maintaining the highest standards of ethics."

P.S. See "Quebec Bridge" at Wikipedia.

#Good

The Conscience of Huckleberry Finn

Jonathan Bennett, at Early Modern Philosophy.

The site includes a selection of texts and articles by Mr. Bennett.

(via M. Z. Dwyer at The Great Conversation)

From the Center: Adler on classics, on prophecy, and on leisure;

Recent communications with members of the Center for the Study of The Great Ideas included:

• Mortimer Adler on overrated classics
• On A. C. Grayling and books on being good
• Adler on prophecy as one of The Great Ideas
• Biographical note on Plato
• On John F. Kihlstrom and threats to reason in moral judgment
• On Nicholas Tampio and what philosophy encompasses
• On Charlotte Curtis and Mortimer Adler on leisure and reading

---

Become a member

Mortimer Adler on The Golden Rule (Mt 7:12)

Sermon given by Dr. Adler at Christ Church on August 11, 1991 in Aspen, Colorado.


In Matthew: 7.12. Jesus says: “All things whatsoever you would have men do unto you, do you ever so to them.”

As most of us rephrase this when we use this in our daily lives, we say, Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. And when we say this, we think we are summing up moral philosophy in a nutshell. This is all you need to guide the conduct of your lives.

I am going to try to show you that this is not so—that the golden rule by itself is vacuous, i.e., empty of meaning; that by itself it does not tell you how to behave towards others or how to conduct your own life. I must add that it does contain one true moral insight, namely that any sound rule of conduct or moral precept must be universal—applicable to all human beings everywhere.

This is the only truth in Immanuel Kant’s famous categorical imperative (which is otherwise as vacuous as the golden rule).

So act that the maxim of your conduct can become a universal law of nature. In other words, what you are morally to do in your conduct toward others is what they are morally obliged to do in their conduct toward you. But this truth does not tell you what either you or anybody else is morally obliged to do. It merely says that all true moral obligations, in either direction—you toward others or others toward you—must be the same.

Before I go any further and try to solve this problem for you, I must tell you that the golden rule, which we find Jesus stating in the gospel according to St. Matthew, is to be found also in most of the great religions of the world.

Judaism’s Talmud: What is hateful to yourself, do not do to your fellow men” (i.e., what is injurious to you, because it violates your rights is injurious to others also because it violates their rights; so that if you expect them to be just in their conduct toward you, be just in your conduct toward them).

Islam: “No man is a true believer unless he desires for his brother what he desires for himself” (i.e., right desires are the same for all, for you as well as for others, and all right desires are for what is really good for human beings, which is the same for all).

Hinduism: “One should never do to another that which one would regard as injurious to one’s self” (i.e., the same as before—injustice) (i.e., which is injuring others) is the same whether it is injustice toward you or toward others, and no one should be unjust.

The fundamental terms of moral philosophy are good and evil, right or wrong. Which is primary, which is secondary? I think the answer to that question is that good and evil are primary, and right and wrong are secondary.

Good and evil are the subject of our desires and aversions. Right and wrong apply to our conduct towards others. In Christian moral theology, we find two precepts of natural moral law. The first precept is: Seek the Good. The second precept is: Harm no one (i.e., do not do anything that deprives others of real goods or interferes with their attaining what is really good for them).

As thus understood, the second precept is obviously dependent on the first and derivative from it; for if we do not know what is really good for us, we cannot avoid harming others.

The first principle of moral philosophy—its categorical imperative—is: You ought to seek everything that is really good for you and nothing else. Only when you know what is really good (e.g., truth is really good for human beings to know) can you draw any conclusions, such as seek the truth.

Now let us face the most difficult of all problems in moral philosophy. To do this, let us suppose that you understand the difference between what is really good for all human beings and what is only apparently good to some individuals but not to others.

Then you will be able to discover what you ought to seek for yourself.

That will also tell you what others ought to seek for themselves.

But how will that tell you why you ought to do unto others what you expect them to do unto you?

How is the second precept of natural moral law derived from the first precept: how does your seeking the good lead you to obey the injunction: harm no one; i.e., do not injure them by depriving them of what is really good for them?

Let me restate this problem another way. Unless you understand the problem, you will not be able to understand the solution.

The problem is the age-old problem that everyone recognizes—the problem of whether selfishness and altruism come in conflict, or are inseparable from one another (i.e., no one can be truly selfish without also being altruistic)?

To make this clear, let us consider what are traditionally called the four cardinal virtues: fortitude or courage, temperance, justice, and prudence.

Of these, temperance and courage are entirely self-regarding virtues; and justice is entirely other-regarding.

without also being just, then one can seek the good and at the same time harm or injure others, that is, be unjust toward them.

And if that is the case, the golden rule is out: you do not have to do unto others what you would have them do unto you. You want them to be just to you because that helps you to attain what is really good for you; but you can seek what is really good for you, without being just toward them if you can get away with it.

This problem arises in our seminars when we discuss the ring of Gyges in Plato’s Republic.

If, with the ring of Gyges, you can be unjust to others and get away with it, why not do so? What’s in it for you to be just to others, if you can seek your own good without being just toward them?

In that little word if lies the whole problem.

If it is not possible to seek your own good without being just to others, then you must act toward others as you would have them act toward you.

In short, the solution lies in a question that Aristotle answers in one way and all other moral philosophers answer in the opposite way.

The question is: are these moral virtues existentially separate virtues (so that you can have any one of the three without having the other two); or are they only three analytically distinct aspects of moral virtue, so that if you have moral virtue, you will have justice along with temperance and courage.

Aristotle’s answer depends on the role of prudence in relation to temperance, courage, and justice.

Prudence consists in choosing the right means for the right reason, the right end. Thus, there is no prudent thief or murderer, for his reason for being crafty is wrong.

He should be called clever rather than prudent, because the means he chooses for getting away with it, is not a choice for the right reason.

There is only one right end for all human beings, which is happiness conceived as a whole life enriched by the possession of everything that is really good for human beings.

Hence, if prudence is involved in justice as well as in temperance and courage, then they are all dispositions to choose means for the same reason (i.e., for the same ultimate end, happiness).

Therefore, one cannot be temperate or courageous without being just (which is another way of saying that one cannot act for one’s own happiness without also acting for the happiness of others).

Hence, there is no conflict between selfishness and altruism. The other-regarding aspect of virtue (altruism) is inseparable from the self-regarding aspects of virtue (selfishness).

I hope you understand this. It makes Aristotle’s Ethics the only sound moral philosophy in the Western Tradition—and perhaps in other traditions as well. It is also the only way to make sense of the Golden Rule.

Why Spinoza still matters

Steven Nadler on Spinoza, excommunicated from the Talmud Torah congregation of Amsterdam by a writ of cherem 360 years ago today, at Aeon

(via Penny Parker at the Great Conversation Reading Group)

From the Center: Nakul Krishna on how to live; Mortimer Adler on opinion;

Recent communications with members of the Center for the Study of The Great Ideas included:

• Nakul Krishna on moral philosophy
• Mortimer Adler on opinion as one of the Great Ideas

---

Become a member

The Psychologists Take Power

Review essay by Tamsin Shaw at The New York of Books.

"No psychologist has yet developed a method that can be substituted for moral reflection and reasoning, for employing our own intuitions and principles, weighing them against one another and judging as best we can."

From the Center: Adler on memory and imagination; Bret Stephens; Montaigne; Julia Baggini

Recent communications with members of the Center for the Study of The Great Ideas included:

• Bret Stephens on Radical Parents, Despotic Children and recent events on college campuses
• Montaigne on ends and means
• Julian Baggini on free will
• Mortimer Adler on memory and imagination as one of the Great Ideas
• The Center has received a 2015 Best of Chicago Award
• Remember Pearl Harbor?