A beautiful soul in a beautiful world: Toward a better understanding of sustainability
by Andrew Taggart
On my run yesterday, I dreamed up the title of the informal talk I’ll be giving at the Future Perfect Festival to be held in Stockholm at the end of August. It is: “A Beautiful Soul in the Beautiful World: Toward a Better Understanding of Sustainability.”
It may seem a non-starter for a festival on sustainability, one attended by urban designers, architects, business leaders, and economists, to insist that beauty be the point of departure for a discussion of sustainability, but so be it. So be it.
How might this talk go? To begin with, I may be examining whether speaking about sustainability in terms of measurable quantities–natural resources to be depleted or maintained–or in terms of the ‘health’ of the planet–a healthy ecosystem, a ‘sick’ planet–is leading us astray. In addition, I may be wondering whether the concepts of an ‘issue’ (to be addressed), an ‘agenda’ (items to be put on and then checked off), a ‘problem’ (to be solved or fixed) are the right concepts for a sustainable collective way of life. I doubt whether these general conceptual frameworks are the right ones and I will be urging that beauty is a better one.
Here I turn to my hobby horse: the virtues. Alasdair MacIntyre wrote, in After Virtue, that we moderns are living “after the virtues.” He means “after the loss of the Aristotelian virtues.” This seems right yet partial. I think I want to argue that each epoch valorizes a particular set of virtues. The Homeric warrior ethic valorized manly virtue and a life of glory. The Christian medieval ethic held that the good life was lived according to humility, chastity, and fidelity. An aristocratic ethic, evident still in a novel like Kazuo Ishiguro’s The Remains of the Day, exonerated nobility, honor, and gentility. And so on.
It seems reasonable to claim that the modern world upholds the virtues of the market: prudence, resolution, industry, discipline, among others. Now, if we are indeed inculcated in the virtues of the market, then perhaps our conceptions of sustainability (scarce resources on the one hand, health or sickness on the other) are already ‘infected’ by our admiration of these virtues. Perhaps this is right.
So I want to say that all this–the whole thing, I mean–is a non-starter for talking about sustainability. And I want to return us to a far simpler understanding in which we seek to live according to nature. “Living according to nature” was a formula that Epicureans, Daoists, Stoics, Cynics, and others all subscribed to.
Well, and now I want to introduce the beautiful soul as a being who lives according to nature. Specifically, a beautiful soul is a person who has achieved a harmony of the salient virtues. This definition needs to be analyzed.
First, I’ll be exploring what these salient virtues are. They may include openness, compassion, courage, patience, humility, and impartiality. (I’m not sure, as of yet, about the precise list of the salient virtues.)
Second, I’ll want to say something about what it means to exercise these salient virtues, as opposed, say, to the Homeric virtues or market virtues or whatever. What kind of life is this anyway? I’ll try to make this way of being perspicuous.
Third, I’ll want to show that a beautiful soul has achieved a harmony of these virtues and I suppose I owe the listener a few words about the concept of harmony.
I’m hoping that what will ‘fall out’ of this account of the beautiful soul is a novel conception of sustainability. Am I warranted in concluding that a beautiful soul just is someone who lives a sustainable life as a matter of course? I don’t know.
Enough first musings for now.
I like this a lot, especially the idea of our fascination with the virtues of the market ‘infecting’ our conception of sustainability. Here are a couple ideas to consider as you continue to explore this.
Other virtues – I’m thinking ‘(corporate) stewardship’ and ‘(corporate) responsibility’, specifically – might be examples of this ‘infection’. They are part of our fascination with the market *and* are specifically part of how the market tries to address sustainability.
So as part of demonstrating that the virtues of the market are a non-starter, It could be interesting (and provocative) to examine these virtues that try to address sustainability ‘through’ the market.
Am also curious about our fascination with certain vices – exploitation, maximizing ROI and valuing short term ROI for example – and how they also influence our notions of sustainability.
First let me say congratulations on this opportunity to speak at such a well-meaning conference. I wish you and the group of attendees all success in your endeavors. They are important.
Second, I really enjoyed your musings on the procession of virtues from Homeric, to Christian/Medieval, to Aristocratic, to Modern. They strike me as an evolution from base individual competition (producing warrior exemplars), to cooperation of the weak (producing monkish exemplars), to cooperation of the moneyed elite (producing nobleman exemplars), to honorable competition of all workers (producing Steve Jobs entrepreneurial exemplars). The next step, when looked at through this lens, could be honorable cooperation of all. Perhaps that will prod some thoughts during your search for your “salient virtues.”
Now, in regards to your “beautiful soul” “living according to nature”, I think this is exactly the way to think about this. I offer some of my similar musings for consideration as you continue yours. According to my Evolutionary Philosophy, one of my basic tenets is that a universal definition of good arises from nature. Good is that which enables the long-term survival of life. This definition of good is not in the least in opposition to the concept of sustainability, and to me it leads to some aesthetic descriptions of beauty. What promotes the long-term survival of life? Knowledge. Health. Progress. Stability. Exploration. Efficiency. Brightness. Abundance. Comfort. Security. Fecundity. Clarity. These are beautiful and good. What threatens the long-term survival of life? Ignorance. Disease. Stagnation. Conflict. Chaos. Isolation. Waste. Darkness. Scarcity. Discomfort. Vulnerability. Barrenness. Obscurity. These are ugly and bad. Again, I’m curious to see how these thoughts come to align with your search for your “salient virtues.”
As a final comment, I would say that I disagree with your suppositions that “speaking about sustainability in terms of measurable quantities…or in terms of the ‘health’ of the planet…[may be] leading us astray. [And] whether the concepts of an ‘issue’…an ‘agenda’…and a ‘problem’…are the right concepts for a sustainable collective way of life.” I consider these to be more just philosophical engineering – a set of technical methods to affect change in the day-to-day world once the philosophical work of determining ethics and aesthetics is complete. I wouldn’t dismiss them, I would just put their consideration in the right order. Additionally, disparaging these in any way may put the audience off and stop them from hearing the rest of your interesting message.
Thanks for sharing your early thoughts on this talk. I look forward to hearing where you end up on this.
Dear Ed,
Thank for this long, considered reply. One of your earlier remarks–”The next step, when looked at through this lens, could be honorable cooperation of all.”–strikes me as particularly interesting and in need of further exploration.
As for your reasonable quibble, I think it comes down to our different points of departure (or First Principles). If I understand you rightly, philosophy provides a general framework, set of principles, a system, or a foundation (etc.). It’s in this spirit that Kant can speak of a *Groundwork* of a metaphysics of morals. From here, one would then go on to do what you call ‘philosophical engineering.’ This I would call a Theoretical Vision of philosophy.
My starting point (or, if you will, my Vision of philosophy) is ‘practical’ in some less commonsensical sense. It’s that philosophy is a way of life, not a theoretical system (as Descartes and Kant, etc. believed). On this understanding, philosophy is more like chanting or praying (‘rational chanting’?) than like mathematics. Through self-cultivation alongside one’s fellows, one aims at self-transformation.
In the case of sustainability, I’m trying to imagine how a beautiful soul, living in a beautiful world alongside beautiful souls, is already living sustainably. It would seem, at least on this construal, as if the problem would fade away. Frankly, I doubt whether this view is ‘scalable,’ though, beyond small communities.
Thank you Andrew. You are right in that I was using my specific definition for *a* philosophy rather than your more general view of philosophy as a way of life. I see your point and am glad to have the clarification.
I’m happy to hear you thought my early remarks were interesting. We seem to have similar goals and values yet think quite differently – that is a fruitful source for potential ideas. If you want to involve me in your further exploration, you have my email and my good intentions. Either way, I wish you success moving forward, and will continue to follow your path.
Your comments about other market virtues and particular vices are really helpful, Nancy. Thank you for the excellent parsing.