Aesthetic Realism is a philosophy stating that the world, or reality, is an aesthetic oneness of opposites. Reality, for example, is simultaneously space and time, idealism and materialism, stillness and motion, the inanimate and the alive, the large and small, object and mind, logic and feeling, world and self, and so on. The plain, necessary sense behind the meaning of “reality as an aesthetic oneness of opposites” can hardly be seen unless the meaning of opposites is seen clearly.
The purpose of these definitions is to have reality seen more clearly by having the opposites in reality seen more clearly—which is also more kindly, truly, and usefully.
We have to see unreality as reality, too. How is this? Well, if “unreality” affects us, and reality is all that can affect one, unreality is reality, too.
How opposites are one, should be looked on as a sober business. Reality has many tricks in it, but reality is not, as such, a trick.
When reality is seen justly, or more completely, is reality more aesthetic or not? Aesthetic Realism says that the only time reality is seen is when it is seen as aesthetics. For example, to see space as only space, and not time too, would be seeing space in a begrudging manner. We should stop this. Further, to see self as self alone, and not as world, or what is not the self, too, is likewise grudging and unwise. How unwise, let the pain of people and the mental asylums of earth point out!
People might agree that in aesthetics the “mobile” and the “structural” are made one; that speed and symmetry are one; that emotion and intellect are; that strength and delicacy are. Well, if this is so, it isn’t only because of aesthetics in the narrow sense. Aesthetics exists because reality wholly does. Aesthetics comes to be when reality in its starkness and opulence is seen.
So, if one says he likes reality and doesn’t like aesthetics, it may be said of this person chidingly, properly, and charitably: he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Knowing what one’s talking about is a tremendous experience.
A definition itself is a specific thing, beautifully specific, while it shows something in common among many, many instances of one thing. A self is like a definition. We are so, so specific while we are a means of finding something in common among all we meet.
As to some technical matters: These definitions should be seen as arising one from the other. The truth of one can hardly be discerned if the others are not seen. Further an audacious simplicity of language, hardness of diction, has been sought. Aesthetic Realism sees a philosophic style like that of the bejeweled and fuzzy George Santayana as abhorrent. Sometimes when simplicity, hardness of statement, is sought, an unusualness of English, looking like awkwardness, is arrived at. This presumed awkwardness is proudly chosen. Between academic slickness, or composite, spurious creaminess, and an unexpected monosyllabic rockiness, let there be monosyllabic rockiness.
Aesthetic Realism being a philosophy, it is hoped that these definitions will be seen as a beginning of that philosophy. It has been seen that the philosophy of Aesthetic Realism, once apprehended, seen as true, and liked, can make people feel more themselves and freer. Now, Aesthetic Realism wants facts and logic to be the mainstay of its truth, but if also, as happens to be true, people have testified for it by being happier through it, that is good also. Aesthetic Realism, after all, wants to put together those delightful opposites: the utmost logic and the utmost personal happiness.
—Eli Siegel