Ethics and Aesthetics

In philosophy, ethics has to do with life and how to live it fully. Aesthetics, on the other hand, has to do with the nature of beauty. At first glance, there doesn't appear to be much connecting the two. However, closer scrutiny reveals an important factor that they have in common.

A good life is an affluent life. This is in the end what we want for both ourselves and for everybody else, especially close friends and relatives. We can therefore say that ethics has affluence as a central theme, and what is affluence if not a life full of beautiful things and experiences?

Rich people surround themselves with things of beauty for a reason. They don't merely do this to show off. They do so to feel rich themselves. They have the means to immerse themselves in luxury and elegance, so they do it. In fact, there's no other way to enjoy riches than this.

Riches and beauty are thus connected, and the consequence of this reaches far beyond the superficial, because beauty can be had for next to nothing when approached with the right frame of mind. There is beauty everywhere, free for everyone to enjoy. No money is required in order to enjoy a sunset or a lungful of fresh air. Riches are not strictly material.

It's possible to be rich in this way without spending money. Conversely, it's possible to be poor despite immense riches. Literature is full of stories centred around this fact. We have the jealous husband, Othello, who's unable to enjoy the company of his beautiful wife, and no amount of riches helps in this respect. The avid collector, Kane, is unable to feel content and satisfied, no matter how much money he spends.

On the other hand, there's the cottager with his plot of land and beautiful garden. He's surrounded by family and friends. His modest lifestyle affords him all that he could possibly want. He's far richer than the king, and this often lands him in trouble, because nothing is so irritating to the dissatisfied as the sight of someone truly affluent and happy.

Not only is the sight of affluence among ordinary people a source of irritation to many ultra-rich. It's also a source of irritation to those who believe that happiness has its source in material wealth, and that anything smacking of wealth must be forcibly redistributed. The very existence of content cottagers enrages such people because it disproves their thesis.

This in turn explains the impulse by politicians to invest public money in art that is ugly or disturbing, rather than things of beauty. Public spaces are systematically refurbished so as to make the age of elegance all but forgotten. There must be no memory of a time where people lived with beauty despite their inferior material means. Only the elite is to live with beauty and elegance.

It also explains my latest Facebook post (pictured below). It's subversive for no other reason than being pretty. Those of my friends who think themselves materially richer than me will take note, and so will my Marxist friends. If they are of the jealous kind, they will be irritated by it. If they are of the generous kind, they'll be happy for me.

Furthermore, this type of affluence can be shared. Pubic display of things that are pretty makes everyone better off. It's the opposite of what politicians are doing to our public spaces, and we should all counterbalance this by making our private sphere more attractive. Our front gardens and balconies should be pretty. Our clothes should be elegant. Our possessions should be well tended, especially those on display for all to see. For full effect, the display should be modest. It's not about showing off, but about sharing, and caring about our community. Make it pretty, make it affluent, and let everyone share in this affluence.

Affluence