Philosophy of Beauty by Francis J. Kovach (review)

332 BOOK REVIEWS American religious pattern, ecumenism and interfaith cooperation, these themes constituting the majority of the book's major chapter headings. While the authors claim the use of several scholarly methodologies in their approach, including history, sociology, theology and anthropology, the general spirit of the work bespeaks a presuppositional commitment to America as a developing society moving rather surely in the direction of a national unity blessed by a providence that inspires the populace to an increasingly benign understanding of America's broad pattern of religious communities and traditions. This attitude emanates quite clearly from the concluding sentence of the book, a sentence appearing very much to be a peroration, " Given the highly dialectical and pluralistic character of American religion, the student is encouraged to proceed in continuing investigation of this complex and fascinating phenomenon with an open and inquiring mind." One closes the book tempted to feel that really America is a very nice place in which to be religious, and that there is no pressing hurry involved in our making up our minds about the doctrinal particulars of our respective commitments. Could it be that, in the great tradition of John Dewey, our ultimate purpose as Americans in studying religion is a religious commitment to study more religion? Virginia Theological Seminary Alexandria, Virginia JOHN R. WHITNEY Professor of Christian Education and Pastoral Theology Philosophy of Beauty. By FRANCIS J. KovAcH. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1974. Pp. 350. In his Preface the author explains that in this book he has not aimed primarily at novelty and originality but at truth concerning beauty, at least as he understands it, "on the basis of epistemological (though not naive) realism." (p. vii) The book is the result of a double "prise de conscience " : on the one hand, of the fact that esthetic objectivism is being questioned from all sides and is thus on the defensive; on the other hand, of the fact that the precious heritage and the admirable wisdom of the esthetic objectivists of the past, especially those of the Middle Ages, are virtually forgotten. (Ibid.) The book is written in such a way that it can be used both by students at different levels and by professionals. The first part, on esthetics in general, examines the definitions (first etymological , then " essential ") and the divisions of esthetics. The second part, which is much longer, begins by establishing through direct argumentation " the objective, extramental reality of beauty" (p. 65); the author thereupon criticizes successively the various forms of esthetic subjectivism; BOOK REVIEWS 333 he then examines the reasons why people disagree about esthetics. Next, after a historical inquiry into the essence of beauty, the author presents his own "essential definition" of beauty, then demonstrates it "speculatively, both at the physical (empirical) level and at the metaphysical level " (p. 184) , employing the esthetic method which he has previously explained. Proceeding by syllogisms, the author demonstrates that at the physical level " every beautiful material being is an organized whole," and " all material beauty consists in order, that is to say, in a unity that is integral and proportioned." (pp. 184 and 185) At the metaphysical level "every beautiful being is an integral whole, with or without proportioned parts," and "beauty in general is integral unity with or without proportion of parts." (p. 185) The author thereafter discusses the division of beauty, its " transcendentality " (always according to a syllogistic method), and its privation (ugliness). Finally, in his concluding chapter, he studies esthetic experience. One readily sees that the entire endeavor of the author is to show the objectivity of beauty. The criticisms which he addresses to Maritain (apropos of transcendental beauty and esthetic beauty) indicate clearly that he wishes at all costs to avoid esthetic subjectivism (see pp. 262-263). From this standpoint his effort is very interesting. But it seems that he does not altogether succeed in establishing an adequate realism as a basis for safeguarding objectivity. In order perfectly to safeguard the reality and the objectivity of the beautiful (while at the same time recognizing the subjective component which it implies) , should he not have begun with esthetic experience? The beautiful does not have the objectivity of the true, nor that...