Art: Moral or A-moral

The clearest picture of art, as many understand it, is those paintings hanging on the walls in the houses, halls, auditoriums, etc. They are placed in those areas where people’s attention is caught. But only few appreciate art, or maybe they never know what art is. What does art consist is the right approach that ordinary folks can better grasp the idea.

Objective and Subjective Judgments

No single individual has the same taste when ask to give judgment on a piece of art work in front of them. But two most common sources from which their individual judgments derive. First is the objective judgment, and this means the appearance of the art work is somehow almost perfect – how the artist set in place the materials that create his masterpiece like the exact mixing of different combination of ink colors and the neatness of drawing. Second is the subjective judgment where the observer finds the meaning of the art work being conveyed, its relevance to the development of the person and the society as a whole. In other words, art itself speaks to any individual who happens to discover its meanings.

Truth of Art

The objective approach tells us what that piece of art means. And there are two kinds – the concrete and the abstract. The concrete piece of art, without much human effort, reveals its meaning and value by using our five senses. But the abstract piece of art requires effort from our intelligence. It needs our focus and concentration in arranging art-like puzzle. The subjective approach becomes the venue of understanding what does the artist wants to say deeply, for art is one of the means of expressing one’s self and world view. It is the best way of doing critical analysis of the artist’s world, his life-experience and aspirations for us. These two approaches complement each other to bring out its truth.

Truth-value of Art

If there is one thing in common on why do art exist is this: artists want to spread the message and light the world its truth-value. What does it mean by truth-value? I am sure that the truth-value is something what artists believe as essentials to our existence. Theodor Adorno speaks well about the critical role of art, and showcases that art has truth-content. This truth-content of art is not there to be displayed and be enjoyed by the viewer saying ‘This is art!’ But this truth-content is dynamic. It has the capacity to transform our thinking, our relationship, our existence, and our world for the better. Of course, the opposite is also true that art can transform everything for the worse.

Art and Morality

The truth-content of art has the power of transformation either for the better or for the worse. This is the basis of consideration when to include or not the piece of art for public display and for public viewing. In the case of Cruz’s art, both views – objective and subjective – speak of the transformation for the worse. His art is a combination of religious objects, treated as sacred by its adherents, and sex objects like contraceptives, considered as evil taught by the Church. What is in store is that there is no gap between art and morality.

Thinking of art as manifestation of beautiful is superficial. Art does not exist for beauty’s sake, for beauty has its boundaries and not limitless as many think that way. The essence of beauty effects harmony, a transformation for the better. And if every artist has the sense of this essence, the road to building a better society is not far from possibility. Art is not beyond morality but always abound within it.

Who is a philosopher?

If one wants to become a nurse, he must enrol himself in nursing course. If one wants to be a teacher, he must take up the course of education. This procedure is the same with other courses one desires. And in becoming a philosopher, taking up that discipline or not may not be necessary.

Philosophy course is a professional course. But when one has the chance to look into the history of philosophy, numerous philosophers were not graduates in such course, and their followers have made their names great. What makes them as such?

Philosophers of old did not aspire to make their names great. It was their disciples and students adhere to their ideas. They have discovered that their ideas provide satisfactions to their personal and social queries. We have such examples like Plato who make his teacher Socrates known by making him one of the characters in his writings or Immanuel Kant’s admiration to seek more metaphysical principle by the thoughts of David Hume.

Two things, as I see it, common from these thinkers. First, it is their quest for answers to the very fundamental questions that every ordinary human being encounters. These questions have kept on appearing in their minds. And each has their own styles in approaching those questions. Thus no two thinkers have the same answers. And the second thing is their sense of awe and wonder on why things around them seem to be acting in particular and strange ways. In short, they try to explain the phenomena by using their thinking skills.

Each person is gifted with rationality. And from this inherent gift, he can impregnate unique ideas. There are as many ideas as there are many thinkers trying to answer those questions. But sad to say, no amount of brilliant ideas or simple as it may, has ever met with satisfaction. We are tantamount to say that the fundamental and philosophical questions are enveloped with the sense of mystery. And satisfaction comes only when thinkers are able to unveil that sense of mystery that surrounds them, and point to thoughts beyond appearance and sense impression. And, I believe, this is the secret on becoming a philosopher.

The Urstoff

What makes later generation of thinkers in the ancient Greeks, after Homer and Hesiod, philosophers? These men revolutionize the conventional mentality of the culture at that time, establishing solid arguments from their rational reflections of the world in broadest term. And the quest for answers to the question of urstoff has taken its toll.

The question about urstoff starts from man’s day-to-day observation of reality. The basic form of this is the fact of change, from existence to decay, young to old, life and death. If reality happens that way, there must be a point of origin of all things as they speculate. And this point of origin is somehow permanent, where the emanation of all things coming forth.

The point of origin is at the same time the point of unity. This is the idea of One and the Many made popular by Norris Clarke as the title of his existential metaphysics book. The philosophical questions that led to the discovery of urstoff is this: What is the basic stuff of everything? Does it imply the materiality of all things?

To question about the essence of the urstoff is not the preoccupation of the early thinkers. There was no dichotomy yet in their mind between what is of spirit and of matter. And when Thales answers that it is water,  Anaximenes air, and Heraclitus fire as the ultimate element, they posited a material unity.

Their basic stuffs are very elementary, but it has to be thought of as extraordinary, at least during their times, when their civilization was characterized as living under the domination of the divine, where the answers to all human queries were coming from the supernatural beings – of gods and goddesses. It is extraordinary because they provide human answers as a product of their sense of awe and wonder.

Source: Copleston, Frederick, S.J. A History of Philosophy. Vol. 1 Greece and Rome

On Arête and Hubris

The Greeks in the ancient period have many characteristics, and one of them is their “Will to Power.” This will to power once interpreted as ‘might is right theory’ that results to domination over the weak, and their subjection to the powerful. Later, Friedrich Nietzche adopted the ‘will to power’ idea in his understanding of man, as a means or capacity to withstand amidst the reality of ugliness and sufferings of life.

The concept of the ‘will to power’ is not free of criticisms from the philosophers at that time. Plato, for instance, speaks against it when people think about domination that leads to destruction. This may be taken from the vantage view of politics. But what about putting the concept in psychological viewpoint? In their culture and character, it shows the two sides of the ‘will to power.’

The first is the exercise of moderation, and it is sometimes called arête, which means the ability to achieve success. The second is the side of excess. It is sometimes called hubris, which means that one is possessed the unbridled lust for self-assertion.

What is laudable between the two for some of the Greeks is the arête, because there is the exercise of temperance and self-discipline as human virtues. It appears in many of the ancient art works the picture of Apollo symbolizing arête, as opposed to Dionysius the Elder and the Younger, the symbols of hubris, with their limitless and lust for self-assertion. They were both tyrants of Syracuse of Italy around 4^th to 3^rd century BC.

The Greeks later created the Olympian dream-world as police, watching over the people to observe arête than hubris. This means that when one is being caught of transgressing his limit or going beyond moderation, the gods would get wrath over him.

Sources: Copleston, Frederick, S.J. A History of Philosophy. Vol. 1 Greece and Rome, and Microsoft Student 2008

On Homer and Hesiod

Little is known by many about the two great writers in ancient Greece, namely, Homer and Hesiod. Except one is majoring in Literature or English under the Liberal Arts course, and one has the opportunity to read the importance of their writings that shaped western civilization.

Historians and scholars assigned their existence around 8^th century BC. Speaking of ancient Greece, it is divided according to their political and historical periods, and these two Greek writers fall into different place.

Homer was believed to belong to the Ionian period of old civilization, long before the Aechean aristocracy took its reign. Homer was known for his great epic Iliad, which tells about the Trojan War between the Greeks and the people living the city of Troy, and Odyssey, which tells about the return of Odysseus from the Trojan War.

Hesiod, on the other hand, was the epic writer of the mainland Greece. Hesiod was known for his poem Theogony, which speaks about the genealogy of the gods and the creation of the world.

The contributions of Homer and Hesiod to the ancient Greece help others understand on harmonious living with other men and women in the society, on the origin of the world, and on laws governing the universe. Furthermore, their conception of ideas serves as the springboard of rational reflection by men who wonders things around them. It is the beginning of endless philosophical journey.

Sources: Copleston, Frederick, S.J. A History of Philosophy. Vol. 1 Greece and Rome, and Microsoft Student 2008

The Sign of the Cross (Part 2)

The Sign of the Cross is made thus: First choose your style:

·         Option A. With your right hand, touch the thumb and ring finger together, and hold your index finger and middle finger together to signify the two natures of Christ. This is the most typical Western Catholic practice.

 

·         Option B. Hold your thumb and index finger of your right hand together to signify the two natures of Christ

·         Option C. Hold your thumb, index finger, middle finger of your right hand together (signifying the Trinity) while tucking the ring finger and pinky finger (signifying the two natures of Christ) toward your palm. This is the typically Eastern Catholic practice.

 

·         Option D: Hold your right hand open with all 5 fingers -- representing the 5 Wounds of Christ -- together and very slightly curved, and thumb slightly tucked into palm

Then:

·         touch the forehead as you say (or pray mentally) "In nomine Patris" ("In the name of the Father")

·         touch the breastbone or top of the belly as you say "et Filii" ("and of the Son")

·         touch the left shoulder, then right shoulder, as you say "et Spiritus Sancti" ("and of the Holy Ghost"). Note that some people end the Sign by crossing the thumb over the index finger to make a cross, and then kissing the thumb as a way of "kissing the Cross."

Conclusion

This sacred sign being practiced by Catholics is no mere empty sign as thought by many who did not understand it. The forehead is the locus where each individual recognized as the entry point and storage of knowledge. By this holy gesture, it helps us remember that God is the only Supreme Being whom we render our worship, reminds us of our identity as followers of the cross where we attain salvation, shows our dependence to Him and our nothingness, and makes Jesus as the center of our being and living in the truth of the Trinity – Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen.

The Sign of the Cross (Part 1)

Among the Christian groups, only members of the Roman Catholic Church are doing the sign of the cross. Yet many of these members do not know the meaning and reason why they are doing it and how to do it properly. This simple note can help us understand the topic in four points. 1. The foreheads in the writings of the Old Testament and the Church Fathers. 2. Why do we make the sign of the cross? 3. When do we make the sign? 4. How do we make the sign of the cross?

1. The forehead in the writings of the Old Testament and the Church Fathers are of utmost importance. The Church Fathers inherits its significance from the Old Testament that became the tradition of the whole Catholic Church where the sign of the cross should begin with. There are two OT writings that tell about the foreheads – Book of Deuteronomy and the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel – and two writings from the Church Fathers – St. Cyril of Jerusalem, A.D. 315 – 386.

a. In Deuteronomy 6: 4-8, the first part of the passage contains the Shema that informs every Jew about their religious duty of love God alone. Every Israelite should place the shema inside the small box and place them in their foreheads as a sign of being a faithful follower of Yahweh. They call it phylacteries. In Ezekiel 9:4, Yahweh tells prophet Ezekiel about the destruction to come in Jerusalem because of the abomination people were doing, and do the mark on the foreheads of men who were righteous.

b. St Cyril of Jerusalem speaks of the forehead from which the sign of the cross be made by our fingers. For him every Christian should reveal the sign of the cross proudly. One should not be ashamed of it nor hid it from the public. For the great price won by Christ is no other but through the cross.

2. The words of St. Cyril have become the basis and standard for the Catholic Church in doing the sign of the cross, beginning with their forehead. The church has also adopted new meanings to it. First, instead of placing the words of the scripture in the foreheads like the Jews themselves were doing, the act of signing one’ self with the cross has been made as the procedure of expressing one’s faith and love for Jesus. Secondly, the cross itself has become the new seal of being Christians, because through the cross Christ has won the victory over sin for us – eternal life. Thirdly, whenever we do the sign of the cross, we profess that our God is indeed three persons – the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And lastly, St. Cyril says that by doing the sign of the cross, we are shield from Satan and his temptation because they are afraid of Him, and for St. Ephrem, it is a protecting wall round all your conduct.

3. St. Ephrem of Syria (died A.D. 373), along with St. Cyril of Jerusalem, has taught the Christians in their own respective communities when they would do the sign of the cross. Let me quote their exact words.

St. Ephrem said: “…over the bread we eat, and the cups we drink; in our comings in, and goings out; before our sleep, when we lie down and when we awake; when we are in the way and when we are still.”

St. Cyril said: “Do not go out from the door of your house till you have signed yourself with the Cross. Do not neglect that sign whether in eating or drinking or going to sleep, or in the home or going on a journey. There is no habit to be compared with it.”