Upon reflection on these two themes of compassion and art, I seem to have come to the conclusion that one must appreciate them as a unified element. To claim to uphold one but not the other seems almost contradictory, for while one is compassionate towards others, they are rejoicing in the divine art that each of these subjects of compassion are there for a purpose, that each is beautiful in its own unique way. Similarly, to truly appreciate art, one must be compassionate to the ideals of the artist, to the human attempt at beauty and expression.

In both cases where compassion or aesthetic appreciation is difficult, the only real barrier is the limitations of the mind. Because “the whole scope of observation is dwarfed into the narrow chamber of the individual mind,” (Pater) we view things through a preconceived stereotype of what is beautiful or what is worthy of sympathy and love, “each mind keeping as a solitary prisoner in its own dream of a world” (Pater). We are blinded by misconceptions; for we, as humans, exhibit the basic need to categorize and objectify the constant flux of sensory information are minds deal with at each moment. Because we “hardly have time to make theories about the things we see and touch,” (Pater) we automatically rely on our basic stereotypical, bestial instincts.

By “never acquiescing in a facile orthodoxy,” (Pater) we can broaden our minds to accept pure love, compassion, and appreciation of each precious moment of life. In the words of Victor Hugo, “we are all under sentence of death but with a sort of indefinite reprieve,” (Pater), and to achieve happiness in this fleeting life we “attain peace by injuring no living creature” (Sivananda) and appreciate the beauty of life “frankly to give nothing but the highest quality to your moments as they pass, and simply for those moments’ sake” (Pater).