I couldn’t come up with 5 varieties like I did with history and theology some weeks ago. In any case, here’s an attempt at delineating modes of interplay available to the fields of philosophy and aesthetics.

Philosophical Aesthetics. Or philosophy of beauty. This is a branch of philosophy. Typical analytical modes of evaluation will be deployed to interrogate the adequacy of the prevailing conceptual apparatus used to frame how we talk and argue about art, beauty, etc. Consider Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Judgment.

Aesthetics of Philosophy. A branch of rhetoric (?) Something like the study of philosophy as literature. Here rhetorical and literary categories of description and evaluation will be deployed to bring to view how the presentation of a philosopher’s authorial voice complements content, projects a model of reasonableness, and cultivates a taste for the charms (and thereby reinforcing the persuasiveness) of its modes of appeal. For instance, consider how the operative aesthetic sensibilities informing Wittgenstein’s Tractatus control his thought and expression—how W.’s prose show us a glimpse of a beauty of which we cannot speak. Related is Clifford Geertz’s Works and Lives, or nearly anything by Wayne Booth.

Aesthetic Contemplation. This is not a branch of philosophy but an approach to the pursuit of truth. Let’s call it imagination seeking understanding. Or perhaps the study of literature/art as a philosophical stimulant. Works more by an appeal to the imagination as the basis of its rhetorical strategy. It isn’t trying to steamroll you by way of its incontrovertible rationality, so it doesn’t wear its logic on its sleeve. Instead it proceeds by exploratory insight and life-like description, so its leverages of persuasion are less coercive and more invitational. Consider Dostoyevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov.

It takes all kinds to make a … church.

The following typology juxtaposes caricatures of three kinds of Christians. More could probably be devised. I call them caricatures because they are exaggerations. No actual Christian will fit neatly into just one of these categories. We’re all more multi-dimensional than our conceptual representations give us credit for. That said, it might be the case that you recognize yourself more in one type than others. It’s not a bad thing if you’re able to admit that to yourself, especially if you use that self-awareness as a diagnostic tool for determining your competencies and deficiencies. Not only would such an exercise potentially help round you out as a Christian, but also it would enhance your capacity to understand and sympathize with Christians of different types. A big part of this will simply be a matter of coming to recognize orientations different from your own as equally authentic expressions of Christianity.

This typology was inspired by a similar effort from Telford Work, who was himself fleshing out George Lindbeck’s typology of theories of religion. Note, though, that my third type does not correspond to Lindbeck’s cultural-linguistic account of religion. I’m not trying my hand at the same explanatory endeavor. Whereas Lindbeck is adjudicating between competing accounts of the essence of religion, I am only trying to describe three complementary impulses within Christianity. Whatever Christianity is, it’s some kind of thing that has proven itself able to motivate and coordinate such various distinct forms of the expenditure of human energy and attention as the following.

		The Scholastic	The Pietist	The Social Gospeler
Gospel	as	worldview	corrective emotional experience	societal policy
Salvation		ignorance→knowledge	antipathy→enthusiasm	loss of agency→ its restoration
Evangelism		apologetics	testimony	advocacy
Conversion		assent to beliefs	surrender to feelings	compliance to vocation
Discipleship		education	spiritual direction	service
Pastor		teacher	spiritual director	community organizer
Sanctuary		classroom	site of experience	rallying point
Sermon		lecture	vehicle of experience	call to action
Bible		encyclopedia	devotional anthology	manifesto
Favorite Bible Passages		Pro 1:7; Ro 12:2; 2 Cor 10:5; 1 Peter 3:15	Psalms	Galatians 2:10; James 1:27; 1 John 3:17-18; Leviticus 19:34
Favored Genre of Literature		polemic treatise	autobiography	open letters (as acts of protest)
Temptations		dead orthodoxy; arrogance	anti-intellectualism; preoccupation with self	eclipse of God’s agency; preoccupation with the secular, the immanent, and the present