# The Aesthetical Jesus, Part I **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 16, 2009, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-i/496611 "2009-05-16T03:40:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2009, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-i/496611/1 "2009-05-16T03:40:24Z")
**THIS OP IS WITNESSING** Aesthetics has been treated different ways by different philosophers. At least, by those who didn’t ignore the topic altogether. There has been everything from Ayn Rand’s literal interpretation of aesthetics as that which is beautiful to Schopenhauer’s rather bizarre treatment of aesthetics as that which empowers escape from our evil will. My treatment is different from both. I treat aesthetics as the evaluation of a thing. In other words, the decision as to whether something has value, and if so, how much. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2009, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-i/496611/2 "2009-05-16T04:29:32Z")
Many people have used goat shit for building fires. Goat shit has value. Given that it was an integral part of providing food to people, it’s value is also quite high. It’s still not aesthetically pleasing. If you’d say that goat shit is indeed aesthetically pleasing, then I’d have to point out two things: 1. Everybody else on the planet would disagree. Having your own definition of words that no one else shares is a pointless pursuit. There’s probably a word out there that means what you want to say, so use that one. 2. (Probably) everything has value to someone for some application or another. And something worthless today might be the source of endless energy tomorrow. There’s no knowing. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2009, 7:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-i/496611/3 "2009-05-16T07:29:16Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > I treat aesthetics as the evaluation of a thing. In other words, the decision as to whether something has value, and if so, how much. Add “emotional or perception-/sensation-” before value and I might agree. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2009, 10:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-i/496611/4 "2009-05-16T10:44:16Z")
I should add,\*\* Lib\*\*, if you will allow me to pre-empt your witnessing, that I am an atheist for aesthetic reasons just as much as I am for rationalist/materialist ones, if not more so. A universe without deity is more elegant to me. I’m not a blind cheerleader of humanity by any means, but the Human Story? That’s a different matter entirely. Our minds - such devices! They lie to us all the time, fill in sensory input we never actually had, create meaning _ex nihilo_, and yet the whole thing works! This wonderful emergent … _thing_ that is me never ceases to excite, interest and amuse me. And _other_ people - endlessly fascinating. A god would just clutter the Universe needlessly. Aesthetically inelegant, boring even. Prosaic. Pedestrian. A tired motif as outdated as bustles or Vaudeville. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2009, 12:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-i/496611/5 "2009-05-16T12:25:07Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > **The Aesthetical Jesus** Every time I see this, I think “Metrosexual Jesus”. ---
**Author:** ![TWDuke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e495f1/32.png) [@TWDuke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TWDuke)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2009, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-i/496611/6 "2009-05-16T19:15:15Z")
So I guess Part 2 is where you give your own special definition of “Jesus.” Can you use this new version of “aesthetics” in a sentence that would demonstrate how it differs from “evaluation” and “value,” because I for one don’t understand what it is you think you’re saying. ---
**Author:** ![DaphneBlack](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/daphneblack/32/5389_2.png) [@DaphneBlack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DaphneBlack)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2009, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-i/496611/7 "2009-05-16T20:05:16Z")
Yeah, I agree with MrDibble in post 3. Aestethics is the _sensory_ evaluation of a thing. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2009, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-i/496611/8 "2009-05-17T04:01:47Z")
Liberal, in other threads I’ve seen you move from “the idea of god is beautiful” to “god exists.” This is ridiculous. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2009, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-i/496611/9 "2009-05-17T05:17:21Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Every time I see this, I think “Metrosexual Jesus”. Longtime friend I often ignore because I disagree with you ;), take that as a description of my several friends and let it blow past. In this case you’ve nailed it. Look at most representations of Jesus. Cast your mind to its bisexual middle, in which you can understand why a person is attractive without necessarily wanting to have sex with him. Today we hear terms like “bromance.” Jesus is the Cool Guy. He’s an extension of the high school lead guitarist you wanted to hang with, though sex didn’t even enter your thoughts. If you thought about it, maybe you realized he was a nice looking fellow, but it was his AURA OF COOL that sealed the deal. Jesus is like that, and he is usually portrayed, in books as well as art, as the Coolest Guy in School. Many cannot separate the Spiritual Jesus from the Way Cool Jesus. We weren’t designed that way. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2009, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-i/496611/10 "2009-05-17T14:16:21Z")
Paging **Liberal**? ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2009, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-i/496611/11 "2009-05-17T14:27:55Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > A universe without deity is more elegant to me. I’m not a blind cheerleader of humanity by any means, but the Human Story? That’s a different matter entirely. Our minds - such devices! They lie to us all the time, fill in sensory input we never actually had, create meaning _ex nihilo_, and yet the whole thing works! This wonderful emergent … _thing_ that is me never ceases to excite, interest and amuse me. And _other_ people - endlessly fascinating. A god would just clutter the Universe needlessly. Aesthetically inelegant, boring even. Prosaic. Pedestrian. A tired motif as outdated as bustles or Vaudeville. Ah, and here I must disagree with you for the same reasons. Nature is not neat; in fact, nothing good is very neat. Everything worthwhile is incredibly complex, having layers and layers extrending down and up beyond our comprehension. Even something as pure and simple as a sunset, or a peice of paper, or a human thought is the creation of nigh-uncountable particles and vast energies, which have combined quite inelegantly. But does God clutter the universe? Oh yes, he did: filled with with a great deal of messy things and silyl ideas. And dammitall, that’s why it’s so much fun. But furthermore, one should not believe or disbelieve in God because one likes the implications (or not), but because one sees God. I have met Him, and I hope to introduce you sometime. But whether he will show Himself to you as to some is His business. But at least you have the right attitude towards the universe. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2009, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-i/496611/12 "2009-05-17T14:46:51Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > Even something as pure and simple as a sunset, or a peice of paper, or a human thought is the creation of nigh-uncountable particles and vast energies, which have combined quite inelegantly. This may devolve into a hijack, but do you really perceive it that way? Because, to me, the fundamental laws of nature (to the extent that they are known) are things of inexplicable beauty and elegance, and a certain kind of simplicity if you can look past the mathematics (which do have their own aesthetics, but that’s not quite what I’m talking about). I remember the first time that I saw, and understood, Maxwell’s equations describing electromagnetic interactions, I laughed out loud in sheer delight (an emotion later repeated when I saw them, in a relativistic context, for the first time united into a simple tensorial equation that pretty much describes all the interactions you’re likely to run into over the course of a day, save gravity). Others, for instance Hamilton’s principle, had the same effect on me – they’re no less than poetry. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2009, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-i/496611/13 "2009-05-17T15:36:30Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > Ah, and here I must disagree with you for the same reasons. Nature is not neat; I never said it was. If that’s what you took from my post, you completely misread it. > [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > But does God clutter the universe? Oh yes, he did: filled with with a great deal of messy things and silyl ideas. You misunderstood me. I’m not saying god fills the place with clutter, I’m saying god, himself, is the unnecessary clutter that adds nothing to the Universe, aesthetically. A Universe that _needs_ a god is inelegant. Hell, even a Universe where the existence of a god is a possibility would displease my sensibilities. Thankfully, this isn’t that Universe. > [@](#): > > But furthermore, one should not believe or disbelieve in God because one likes the implications (or not), but because one sees God. I’ve seen the Universe. It’s enough. There’s nothing a god could possibly add to it that I want. > [@](#): > > I have met Him, and I hope to introduce you sometime. And I’ve met reality, and I hope one day you’ll separate from your delusion so you may meet it. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2009, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-i/496611/14 "2009-05-18T02:02:26Z")
I don’t really see how **Liberal’s** own opinion is all that different from the examples he gives. They just specify a particular form value must take, while his is more general. At least as I understand it. ---
**Author:** ![NoJustice](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecb155/32.png) [@NoJustice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NoJustice)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2009, 6:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-i/496611/15 "2009-05-18T06:44:21Z")
I find it really distressing how many people knowingly allow aesthetic impressions to influence their judgement of reality. Aesthetics hold no deep meaning except perhaps toward the quirky functioning and biases of your own mind. Beauty != Truth. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2009, 9:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-i/496611/16 "2009-05-18T09:38:10Z")
> [@NoJustice](#): > > Aesthetics hold no deep meaning except perhaps toward the quirky functioning and biases of your own mind. But your mind is all you have. > [@](#): > > Beauty != Truth. but… aesthetic appeal (!= beauty) can be a pointer to the truth. Take Picasso’s [Guernica](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guernica_(painting)). I’d hesitate to call it _beautiful_, but it is aesthetically appealing, and the truth it points to about the horrors of war is …not _revealed_, exactly …searching for the right word…maybe _underlined_? _illuminated_? highlighted? Nothing that _changes_ the truth itself, but certainly something that changes\* our perception of the truth\*. And in this Universe of complex brains and untrustworthy senses, that’s just as important, IMO. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2009, 10:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-i/496611/17 "2009-05-18T10:14:40Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Take Picasso’s [Guernica](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guernica_(painting)). I’d hesitate to call it _beautiful_, but it is aesthetically appealing, and the truth it points to about the horrors of war is …not _revealed_, exactly …searching for the right word…maybe _underlined_? _illuminated_? highlighted? Nothing that _changes_ the truth itself, but certainly something that changes\* our perception of the truth\*. And in this Universe of complex brains and untrustworthy senses, that’s just as important, IMO. Surely the same could be said about great ugliness, or unpleasantness? I don’t think the pointer is aesthetically appealing, but aesthetically moving either way along the scale. It’s the strength of the effect, not necessarily whether it’s a nice effect. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2009, 11:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-i/496611/18 "2009-05-18T11:37:26Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Surely the same could be said about great ugliness, or unpleasantness? I thought that’s what I said? > [@](#): > > I don’t think the pointer is aesthetically appealing, but aesthetically moving either way along the scale. IMO, aesthetic appeal is a zero-based scale. “Appealing” and “Moving” are the same thing to me. > [@](#): > > It’s the strength of the effect, not necessarily whether it’s a nice effect. That’s what I’m saying. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2009, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-i/496611/19 "2009-05-18T14:07:24Z")
Ah, ok. Sorry to have misread you. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2009, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-i/496611/20 "2009-05-18T15:38:14Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Every time I see this, I think “Metrosexual Jesus”. Really? The first thing for me was “I don’t care if it rains or freezes …” [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-i/496611.md?page=2)