Over time, the comparison of man with agri cultura entered the permanent set of notions of the Western peoples, creating the basis for a hyperbolic use of that word in the form of cultura animi and for imagining that the indicated education constituted a certain “spirit cultivation.” The etymology of the word “culture” itself points to its close relationship with education.
←42 | 43→
Therefore, it was to the sophists, especially Protagoras, that we owe the association of pedagogy with the philosophy of culture. The idea of man formation is the highest stage of culture – namely, the so-called high culture.
1.4. KALOKAGATHÍA AS THE CROWNING OF ALL VIRTUES
The sophists reinforced the concept of education to culture, which started to be a conscious orientation of a human being towards the defined – universal ideal of man rather than merely a preparation for the profession or forming one social layer within a single nation. The main motif of culture was the perfection of man.
The indicated perfection was defined by the Greek term kalokagathía (beauty-good, nobility, perfection).126 This term is a combination of two words – “beauty” and “good” – kalos kai agathos, the Greeks, however, treated them as one word. This ideal is one of the most specific features of the Greek culture, actually starting with Homer. It was in his works that beauty and good were connected for the first time.127 Later, they could be found in Solon128 and Thucydides.129 However, the complete theory could be observed in Plato and Aristotle. Therefore, the fact regarding the presence of kalokagathía at the dawn of the Greek culture is extremely important as it proves the extraordinary vitality of the word, which the subsequent philosophers tried to explain.130
The Greek term kalokagathía embodied in itself the earlier aristocratic ideal of a gentleman.131 Moreover, in the new political order kalokagathía increasingly defined the old ideal of areté, covering the entire man and all his powers. It was an obliging ideal that fostered imitation.132 It derived from the world of noble ←43 | 44→terms but gradually gained a broader meaning. Finally, it started to be used for defining an ideal of every citizen seeking to attain a higher culture and, finally, the indicated term became a synonym of the “civic virtue.’133
The combination of both beauty and good in one ideal was possible due to a specific, not unambiguous but analogous understanding of both terms. Beauty was better defined by Plato in his Feast where he stated that it was something deserved not only by art but by science and beautiful laws and beautiful behaviour and beautiful bodies and finally the idea itself. Those were the things that the Greeks referred to as beautiful. However, the sense of good was explained by Aristotle in Nicomachean Ethics: “Every skill and every inquiry, and similarly every action and rational choice, is thought to aim at some good; and so the good has been aptly described as that at which everything aims.’134 Thus, Aristotle claims that it was not connected with morality only since it was the aim of action and production as well as cognition. It was the goal pursued and strived for in various ways. It was not without reason that the Ancients were not satisfied with a mere definition of the “moral good” but they spoke of the “moral beauty.” They were not satisfied with the notion “good” itself since they could find good in other orders as well; the “moral good” was not enough either because there were such moral goods that did not deserve to be called beautiful.135 One should therefore consider various types of moral goods to indicate in them the morally beautiful aspect.
These issues were discussed by Aristotle in Book II of Nicomachean Ethics: “ There are three objects of choice – the noble, the useful, and the pleasant – and three of avoidance – their contraries, the shameful, the harmful, and the painful. In respect of all of these, especially pleasure, the good person tends to go right, and the bad person to go wrong.’136 Man can therefore strive for something either because it is morally beautiful, which in the Latin tradition was defined as the ←44 | 45→decent good – bonum honestum, or because it is useful – bonum utile, or because it is pleasant – bonum delectabile. The difference between them relies on the fact that we desire the last one due to the pleasure it gives us and the second one due to the fact that it serves something different and the first one is the aim in itself, we want it for its own sake. Morality is not limited only to the decent good but it refers to each of the goods. The aim of the virtuous man is a proper selection of a particular good, bearing in mind the existing hierarchy. Therefore, he should treat the decent good as an end in itself, as a pleasant good, which is not a real aim of morality, it must be measured by the real relationship with the good per se, however, the useful good cannot only become the goal but it must be decent itself, as a means leading to the good (the end cannot justify the means used to reach it).137
The above explanations point to the fact that only the good-aim is morally beautiful in the proper sense. The remaining goods however, are moral goods but they are not morally beautiful. The indicated considerations concerned the objective aspect, namely, the aspect to which our actions referred. When we approach the action from the perspective of the subject itself, it turns out that the activity related to any of the goods will be morally beautiful provided that it is proper138. Therefore, Aristotle wrote that acting in compliance with the requirements of virtue was morally beautiful.139 It is the way in which the twofold nature of the moral beauty – objective and subjective – is revealed. What connects them is the direct or indirect (in the case of a pleasant or useful good) subordination to bonum honestum – the decent good. This good is man himself. He is both the subject and the object of morality. Apart from the hierarchy existing in the context of various goods, there is also a hierarchy between particular “parts” of which man is composed. They include the material “parts,” i.e. hands, legs, the internal organs, the psychological and emotional sphere and spiritual powers to which the intellect and will belong. The latter ones are immaterial and subjectified in something immaterial that in the Greek and Latin tradition was called the soul. The spiritual life distinguishes man from other earthly beings. He transcends the world of nature due to it, living a personal life, in a spiritual way. Thus, the inner hierarchy of various “parts” of man finds its justification in the human spirit. Man exists to activate that spirit whereas the remaining parts and their actions must be subordinated to that spirit. In the light of the above ←45 | 46→considerations we can conclude that finally our action is morally beautiful only when the inner hierarchy is respected with reference to both the acting subject and other human subjects. Only then is our action really oriented towards the good-aim.140 Therefore, the action we purse because of the goal in and of itself – is just the noble good, also called beauty. Aristotle defined it in the following words in the Rhetoric: “The beautiful is what merits recognition due to the fact that it is worthy of choosing as such.’141 The moral virtues of man targeted at the aim itself and at the decent good, were accentuated in the ideal of kalokagathía. That is why the term kalos related to the highest category in the moral order, to the good in itself which was the decent good, in contrast to the pleasant and useful good, which were goods due to the good in and of itself.142
The ideal of kalokagathía referred both to women and younger people, as well as the older ones. The ideal model was not only a beautiful woman in terms of looks but also the one who had the noble soul. It was emphasized that older people should remember to respect the high moral standards until the end of their lives, which was regulated by law. Kalokagathía was of great importance in public life – it was to characterize the ruler and be the opposite of laziness.143 What characterized the Greeks was therefore the combination of good and beauty with moral order, with human conduct in the broad sense of the word. We are dealing here with the primacy of the moral order over the sensual and aesthetic one and with the primacy of the spiritual order over the physical one.144
The word kalokagathía was used by Xenophon for the first time to describe the ideal guiding the
