Truth and Beauty: Addie's Theory of the Failure of Semantics

To really evaluate whether or not Keats' notion of "Beauty is Truth and Truth is Beauty" from Faulkner's perspective, we should probably lay out a couple of basic definitions--as defined by Merriam Webster provided by Professor Google.

Truth- As you might expect, several definitions apply, but for the sake of the argument, I will focus on two:

1. The state of being the case / fact. The body of real things, events, and facts.

2. A judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true.

The first definition is simple enough: Truth = fact. The sky is blue, dogs bark, and we have class two times a week. That second definition, paradoxically, is entirely subjective; it completely contradicts the first. Now, Truth = whatever we accept it as. No longer is Truth simply a set of easily distinguishable, Boolean statements. Instead, Truth is entirely subjective--dependent on the experiences of the individual and how that individual interprets the events in his/her own mind.

Or, as Emily Dickinson infers, Truth is simply group-think: rationalization of the individual replayed on a massive scale. Resistance to the herd mentality has dire, sometimes fatal consequences. Truth is preserved by a force of wills against dissent, suppressing alternative reality. Cash tries to articulate this phenomena as he rationalizes Darl's commitment to Jackson. "It's like it ain't so much what a fellow does, but it's the way the majority of folks is looking at him when he does it."

Tabling that briefly, the second part of Keat's equality statement is Beauty. In order to determine if they are in fact the same, we refer again to Professor Google's copy of Merriam-Webster. Yet again, we get two paradoxical definitions:

1. The quality or aggregate of qualities in a person or thing that gives pleasure to the senses or pleasurably exalts the mind or spirit.

2. A brilliant, extreme, or egregious example or instance.

Clearly, we are going to have to move beyond mere aesthetics to find Beauty in As I Lay Dying. Everything in the novel, including a rotted corpse, a leg infused with concrete, insanity, abortion, etc. is about as aesthetically pleasing as rolling around the HAZMAT section of your local landfill. However, if Beauty is the extreme or egregious; whether it's Jewel's heroic feats to save both the wagon and the coffin, Anse's determination to bury Addie, or Cash's tolerance for pain (how anyone could tolerate the "grinding" sensation of bone on concrete is beyond comprehension), As I Lay Dying is beautiful.

Back to the original question: Does Truth = Beauty?  To quote Former President Bill "Slick Willy" Clinton: "Depends on what your definition of 'is' is."

On the one hand, the truth is in no way aesthetically pleasing. Death, decay, deception, and delirium are all the facts of life experienced by the Bundrens'. None of it was beautiful: it was hellish torment inflicted frequently and arbitrarily. Seen from this lens, the Bundrens seem like tragic actors in a play, unable to escape their (mostly) horrid fates. But on the other hand, Truth unequivocally equals Beauty. Truth is a subjective reality occupied by outrageous characters affected by egregious circumstances. The Bundrens' torment, seen in this light, is farcical.  They go from tragic actors to narrow-minded individuals intent on accomplishing petty tasks; inadvertently inflicting injury on each other the whole way. 

In this way Addie's Semantic Theory holds: Keat's assertion is subjective, lacks clarity, and completely dependent on the experiences of the individual juxtaposed with the expectations of group mentality. 

Does Truth = Beauty? Good question, I'm still trying to figure out what the definition of "is" is.