I kind of want to bleach my eyes after seeing those paintings, and my first thought about the exact opposite, which is light and purity, is “Aquinas”. “Light and purity? That sounds racist!” He was a theologian. Maybe you can understand some things about this atheistic world now when I say that. They want the opposite of divinity. Those paintings? They want everyone to look that way, inside and out. Say that you oppose that, then prepare to live under a bridge. Unless you can see those things in those paintings walking around in reality and be a good liar about them then you’ll be fine. You have to tell those things “Hello beautiful”. I’m glad we see what they are now instead of just knowing them in words. You can sense some (many) people are like that and then you have the option to describe them- some people can paint them. And the funny thing about leftism is that we’re supposed to interpret the “Baconian reality” as if it’s something out of the Dutch Golden Age. No, those are ghouls and people who are damned.
So at the moment I want to know if Hegel himself was from a decadent time more than he knew so I’m going back 500 years before him
Aquinas does not focus as much as might be expected on objects of sense perception, but primarily upon spiritual or intelligible beauty
I don’t get why there’s such hostility to talking about all this stuff. Oh right, because people identify with those Bacon paintings and feel guilty and “seen”. They want you dead if you can see them that way. And with this implicit threat in mind, they gatekeep gaslight girlboss their way into getting you to say “Hello beautiful”.
This is so much more revealing than Bosch! How “lucky” we are to have this
“Please, god no, there’s no reality to this, he’s making it up!”
Do you ever feel like this yourself?
Living in a world of people like that you don’t get out unscathed.
“There’s no fighting ZOG.”
“It’s time for you to have nigger grandchildren, you have no choice!”
This is model citizen behavior, can’t you see?
Coon souls don’t look like this, those racists are just telling you lies
Anyway, Aquinas didn’t write a “Treatise on Beauty” or something like that, his thoughts on aesthetics are scattered throughout his many many pages so I’m looking for some sustained navigation.
Here’s my first clue of what I’m looking for
Aquinas holds the nature of beauty to be objective, while Kant is interested only in aesthetic judgment.
Did modernity mess up our idea of beauty, that’s what I want to know.
This is what I meant about “the light”
he is much more interested in divine or intelligible beauty
I’d argue that there’s more beauty in a mystical experience than in any philosophizing or appreciation of art. That Kant was so skeptical about whether it’s possible to know the noumenon has always made me wonder if he ever had a mystical experience.
Two paths to choose and more people than you might realize choose to reinforce the Bacon one.