2 Answers

  1. I think that approximately all the thinkers that Bertrand Russell refers to as Romanticism (Rousseau, Nietzsche, Thoreau, etc.; you can read more in chapter 18 of his “History of Western Philosophy”).

    It is interesting that in philosophy there is a dichotomy of the ethical and aesthetic, which strongly correlates with the right and left positions in politics. Ivan Kudryashov wrote about this and other philosophical ideas that are hidden behind the right and left spectrum in politics. To quote Ivan:

    The implicit but sometimes clear choice between ethics and aesthetics in philosophical thought is also strongly correlated with left and right. Leftists are supporters of the educational function of art, and for them the good is aesthetically always connected with the right in the moral and political aspect (the class character of art, the progressive nature of ideas in a work, an element of useful social criticism, etc.). The right is much more likely to perceive aesthetics as autonomous and valuable in itself, and they are also more characterized by the aestheticization of life manifestations, including negative ones.

    In general, this is why thinkers such as Friedrich Nietzsche and Nicolas Gomez Davila attach more importance to aesthetics. As the latter said:”To cite the beauty of a thing as a defense irritates the soul of a plebeian.” At the same time, Baudrillard sees aesthetics rather as a deposed god, who, if not prozibaet in hyper-passivity, then bursts into another conspiracy of art. It's quite funny how philosophy inverts some ordinary association of aesthetics and creativity with left-wing political views. In fact, for the left, art is often something functional, while a boring conservative or a callous traditionalist can “suddenly” burst out with very romantic and poetic statements about aesthetics, which is valuable in itself and above everyday political squabbles.

  2. Gautam Buddha, for example. He believed that everyone was basically equal. All people. All actions. The concept of maya-the illusion of the world, the Dream of Brahma-was not “invented” by him, but before him, the Hindus attached personal caste differences and differences of caste… duty, meaning of existence is of great importance. But Gautama saw that everything was vanity of vanities, all vanity… which Ecclesiastes understood even without any maya.

    This raises the logical question of why we should choose the good… and should I? Gautama's solution is purely aesthetic. Beauty is important to him. And evil is ugly to him.

    In fact, this is not the only solution. Many thinkers have noted that even in the illusory (VR) world, personalities remain the measure of everything for us. There may be an illusion around. But personalities are real. Their interaction and mutual influence is real. And in this case, not everything is an illusion where everything is “vanity of vanities” and does not matter.

Leave a Reply