And is the reverse true?
2007-04-09 07:32:00 · 6 answers · asked by nom de paix 4 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
I don't think so. Asceticism has to do with moral virtue, aestheticism with intellectual virtue. Even if you define asceticism as rejection of the flesh (which is a common definition, but not correct), it is not a rejection of the intellectual appropriation of what is perceived through the senses. Both the ascetic and the esthete seek Beauty; the difference has to do with their relationship to the media.
but this sounds like a question for a graduate seminar. I look forward to reading the answers you get, especially if they include links to other sites that discuss this very interesting question.
2007-04-09 07:43:08 · answer #1 · answered by a 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
QUITE the contrary!
An ascetic is someone who chooses to abstain from most of the products of civilization. They seek a sort of simplicity. Like many pursuits, there are varying degrees - some remain in civilization but just strive to be independant of it in some ways, while others withdraw into complete solitude.
The reasons why a person would do such a thing, however, are often aesthetic on one level or another. Some wish to better appreciate their divinity, or nature itself. Some wish to understand themselves instead of something external. And interestingly enough, I think most describe these things that they are after not only as 'beautiful'... but more so than all the things they left behind.
This suggests that ascetics are not abandoning aesthetics, but rather that they are just focusing on a few aspects of a larger aesthetic whole. The same might be said for the converse situation.
Certainly there have been many works of art that have been noted for their ascetic aesthetic. I seem to even recall one artist who labelled her bedroom a work of art (and it's on display in a museum!). Many famous artists have rejected at one time or another detail, perspective, colouration, realism, unrealism, etc, etc. Rather than being non-art, they are sometimes recognized as BETTER art.
So it goes.
2007-04-09 08:38:34 · answer #2 · answered by Doctor Why 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well the ascetic indeed denies everything, but that is his/her folly. The intention is to dissipate from her/his being the world and all in it, but everytime they open their eyes the world is staring at them. In denying the aesthetic the ascetic chooses in his/her beliefs not to get distracted to achieve the "quest', so he or she thinks.
2007-04-09 07:55:37 · answer #3 · answered by cua13 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes.
What would be the reverse?
2007-04-09 07:34:47 · answer #4 · answered by Underground Man 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your life is too complicated. Relax. Go fishing.
2007-04-09 07:39:14 · answer #5 · answered by Handy man 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, no, and no....lol
2007-04-09 07:39:06 · answer #6 · answered by Alex 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋