Beauty
This theme runs through several big questions. Here are the ones where it plays out.
The questions that illuminate it
Is beauty at the heart of a flourishing life, or a secondary luxury next to ethics and usefulness?
Depending on the weight we give it, beauty becomes a decisive dimension of existence or a mere ornament, sacrificed without regret the moment duty or usefulness demands it. To take a side is to say whether a life with no room for beauty is impoverished, or simply more austere.
Is beauty in things themselves or in the eye of the beholder?
If beauty belongs to things, we can train our eye, argue, be wrong; if it lies only in us, taste is beyond dispute and every judgement is as good as any other. What is at stake is the very possibility of a shared beauty, beyond mere preference.
Are some aesthetic pleasures higher than others, or is every hierarchy of taste a social construction?
Is a symphony really worth more than a pop song, or is "good taste" merely the taste of the dominant dressed up as universal? Admitting higher pleasures lets us uplift and educate, but can despise others' joys; putting all tastes on an equal footing respects everyone, but forbids ever saying one work is greater. To take a position is to say whether we can judge taste without simply imposing our own.
Does art imitate reality, or does it create something radically new?
Behind this choice lies the standard by which we measure a work: its faithfulness to the world, or its power to bring forth the unprecedented. The very status of the artist, skilful mirror or genuine origin, hangs on it.