Here's my response to the question "How do you define beauty? In constructing your answer, engage with Scarry in SOME way":
In regard to my definition of beauty, I
want to first establish that while I do think Beauty exists as an
entity or concept in and of itself, independent of human interaction
or perception, it is only by our human perception that we understand
and are able to see beauty as it is; that is, the word “beauty”
is the only mechanism by which we can properly express what we
perceive to be Beauty or beautiful. I say this because I believe that
beauty is a connection with or glimpse of the divine, the infinite,
and eternity. Just because we as individuals find different things
beautiful on an individual basis does not mean
that beauty or the perception of beauty is subjective, per se,
BECAUSE each person is either seeing the same thing differently or
recognizing and internalizing (on whatever level of consciousness) a
different aspect of Beauty. Each person is gifted with seeing the
world in a particular way essentially unique to them.
My
definition complements Scarry's in several ways. On the last point,
the fact that each individual perceives beauty differently—and
thereby necessarily contributes to the consummate picture and human
understanding of Beauty—supports her push for equality as a central
part of the justice that beauty, Scarry claims, necessarily invites.
That is, if we need every individual on the planet to form the full
picture of beauty, doesn't it follow that each individual has an
equally valuable piece of the puzzle, and should therefore be valued
equally as a contributor to the
greater knowledge of all? Is
it not conceivable that each person also has within them something to
be valued which contributes to society and the promotion or enactment
of justice?
Of
course, not everyone—many people, even, if not all of us, at one
time or another—recognizes this; perhaps, as Scarry asserts, each
one of us can recall a time at which we made a mistake regarding
beauty. And therein lies one of, if not THE fundamental problem with
humanity, with this life: we make mistakes. We are human.
I have not been forced to
prove to myself for a long time the existence of
God, but am continually moved or driven to understand the nature
of God, because, if nothing
else, I am human. The moment at which I come to fully comprehend the
nature of a God, one of two things will happen: I will be one with
God, or I will become God. The distinction is very subtle, yet
important. I personally don't believe the second option is possible,
because that would require me to exist before EVERYTHING, and
after—as far as I can tell, I have already failed the
prerequisites. So with Beauty, if it is indeed something of God and
the “immortal,” as Scarry puts it (I prefer “eternal”), then
to understand it perfectly and always perceive
it correctly would be to surrender our humanness in becoming one with
or (“simply”) becoming God.
Additionally,
Scarry seems disinclined to say
anything one way or the other about how the
existence of the Christian
“God” plays into (or
doesn't) her argument, but
the more, shall we say, mythical example of multiple gods,
assumedly of Greek and Roman history. Nevertheless,
statements like the following speak to me significantly of a very
real, other-worldly, eternal spiritual realm in which resides a
creative force: “The equality of beauty enters the world before
justice and stays longer because it does not depend on human beings
to bring it about: though
human beings have created much of the beauty of the world, they are
only collaborators in a much vaster project.”
[108])
