Morality and Art: Blame the Biographer, but not the Artist (The Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans, Vol. 14, pp. 32-64; 540-604)

In his Lives, Plutarch does not write history, but biography.  His purpose in so doing is to teach morality.  He compared his task to that of the portrait-painter:   

"It must be borne in mind that my design is not to write histories, but lives.  And the most glorious exploits do not always furnish us with the clearest discoveries of virtue or vice in men; sometimes a matter of less moment, an expression or a jest, informs us better of their characters and inclinations, than the most famous sieges, the greatest armaments, or the bloodiest battles whatsoever.  Therefore, as portrait-painters are more exact in the lines and features of the face, in which the character is seen, than in the other parts of the body, so I must be allowed to give my more particular attention to the marks and indications of the souls of men, and while I endeavor by these to portray their lives, may be free to leave more weighty matters and great battles to be treated by others."  (pp. 540-41, italics added) 

Having just read Oscar Wilde's The Picture of Dorian Gray, I found Plutarch's analogy of the biographer to the portrait-painter fascinating.  While the analogy worked for Plutarch's purposes, I think a closer examination of art and biography reveals some important differences.  Plutarch was not writing a history or a novel, but a biography.  His purpose was to discover "virtue or vice in men" by examining and recording the way great men lived.

Wilde, on the other hand, was an artist.  And his purpose was different than Plutarch's purpose.  "Vice and Virtue are to the artist materials for an art....  All art is at once surface and symbol.  Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril.  Those who read the symbol do so at their peril.  It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors....  We can forgive a man for making a useful thing as long as he does not not admire it.  The only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it intensely.  All art is quite useless."   (Dorian Gray, Preface).   

While Wilde argues that art is "useless," I do not think he means that it is without value.  I think he means that art is an end in and of itself to be enjoyed.  Wilde does not use the term "useless" pejoratively.  In fact, art, as a thing we enjoy intrinsically,  has more value than things, or works, which are useful only as a means to an end.  For Wilde, "virtue or vice" are the means to an enjoyable, artistic end. 

For Plutarch, the end is to make "the clearest discoveries of virtue or vice in men."  (p. 540)  His work is a means to a higher end: to use the lives of good and notorious men to teach morals to his audience.  That is not to say that there is not artistic value in Plutarch's work.  Secondarily, the Lives is beautifuly written and has artistic value in and of itself, regardless of the reader's ability to improve his life as a result of its study.  But, at least under Wilde's definition, the Lives is not art.  Likewise, I can use Oscar Wilde's masterpiece as a paper weight, or as a trophy on a book shelf to impress my friends (not that they would be impressed).  But according to Wilde, if his work is of any artistic consequence, it cannot have any "ethical sympathies."  For "[a]n ethical sympathy in an artist is an unpardonable mannerism of style."  (Preface)  The art itself is the end, and there are no other layers to explore.

It is tempting to find a lesson in ethics and morals in The Picture of Dorian Gray.  But it is not a moral story.  The story does not teach a lesson on morality, nor does the picture in the story reflect any "ethical sympathies."  Dorian Gray's changing portrait does not reflect the artist Basil's view of the world.  Rather, it mirrors and reflects the worldview of the spectator, the dandy Dorian Gray.  As Lord Henry preaches, when Dorian blames a book given to him by Henry for Gray's own bad behavior:  "You and I are what we are, and will be what we will be.  As for being poisoned by a book, there is no such thing as that.  Art has no influence upon action.  It annihilates the desire to act.  It is superbly sterile.  The books that the world calls immoral are books that show the world its own shame.  That is all."  (p. 172)    

It makes me wonder why Socrates wanted to get rid of all the poets in his Republic.  Maybe they just weren't very useful?  Also, I seemed to have learned a great amount from Wilde's book.  I didn't just enjoy it, but I feel like I learned a lot about the nature of art and the purpose it plays in our lives.  Does this mean that the book is not "art"?  Or was this lesson merely a collateral result of a story that was primarily meant to be read and enjoyed for its own sake?

I'll have to think about that.

Men are (Political) Animals (Politics, Book 1, Vol. 9, pp. 445-55)

Again, in the interest of catching up, this shall be a short post.

Dr. Adler does a great job of showing Aristotle's logic in arguing that man is a political animal and that the state is "natural."

(1)  the state arises out of human need;
(2)  all men are meant to live in a state;
(3)  if the state is natural, how it comes about cannot be completely due to human deliberation and rules;
(4)  since the state is a natural, it has an end or purpose.

"If all communities aim at some good, the state or political community, which is the highest of all, and which embraces all the rest, aims at good in a greater degree than any other, and at the highest good."  (445)

So if the state has an end or purpose, what is that purpose?  I would think that if the purpose of man is to lead the good life and to be happy (as discussed in the Nichomachean Ethics), the purpose of the state is to allow all to engage in the pursuit of happiness.  I am thinking about taking this theme and writing a paper on the role of the "pursuit of happiness" in the formation of public policy.  It seems to me that our policy makers and business leaders are so focused on economic benefits, that we are missing out on improving the well-being of our citizens.  Money, except for a minimum amount to provide for our basic needs, does not lead to greater happiness.  So it certainly follows that public policy designed to help people achieve as much money as possible is not necessarily going to lead to a happier society.  If it works out well, I will be able to do some research on this idea.     

There is so much more to this, but I have to move on.  I'm most of the way through the Plutarch reading, so I'll be blogging my thoughts on that soon. 

Don't Worry, Be Happy (Nichomachean Ethics, book 1, Vol. 9, pp. 339-48)

I've been keeping up with my reading, but haven't done a good job keeping up with my blogging.  I hope to get back in gear.

This has been my favorite reading up to this point.  I won't go into much detail (so as to allow me to catch up), but here is a quote from the reading:

     "He is happy who is active in accordance with complete virtue and is sufficiently equipped with external   goods, not for some chance period but throughout a complete life.  Or must we add 'and who is destined to live thus dies as befits his life?'  Certainly  the future is obscure to us, while happiness, we claim, is an end and something in every way final.  If so, we shall call happy those among living menin whom these conditions are, and are to be, fulfilled -- but happy men."  (p. 346)

Thus, for Aristotle, happiness is a moral virtue.  Somebody who leads a good life and not necessarily somebody who has a good time.  The good life takes a lifetime and is not easy to attain. 

I've been reading a lot of articles lately on "happiness," and my favorite is "What Makes Us Happy" in the June 2009 Atlantic by Joshua Wolf Shenk.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/06/what-makes-us-happy/7439/

I would recommend it to anybody who wants to live 'the examined life."