|
|
| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
 Objective beautyCould anyone here define objective beauty, or how it might operate? My initial feeling is that there is no such thing as objective beauty, only beauty by cultural consensus and by personal preference. Any thoughts? Steve |
||
|
nf7mate 01-Jul-09, 08:15 |
Beauty Let's compare beauty to heat, which is another objective quality. Two people could be given identical cups of coffee, and one could say it is very hot, but the other could say it is only slightly warm. They are both making a statement about the coffee, particularly the quantity of a specific quality of the coffee: heat. Notice that although the two perceive the coffee differently and disagree on whether or not the coffee is hot, the coffee does possess some objective level of heat. This debate is an old one. Plato considered beauty to be an ideal form, permanently fixed though representatives may come and go. Aristotle claimed beauty cannot be objective, and that the idea of beauty changes with time. |
||
|
Hot and cold I will concede that there is a concept called beauty, which could be defined as that which gives intense pleasure or deep satisfaction to the mind or senses". But pleasure and satisfaction are subjective experiences, like experiencing the heat of coffee is subjective, hence different initial responses from your drinkers. However, the heat of the coffee can also be *objectively* measured. Not only externally, by thermometer, but each successive cup can be compared accurately with the last. Drinkers given successive cups will give you similar, of not identical 'hotter', or 'colder' or 'the same as the last' responses, regardless of their gender, age or culture. Beauty cannot be thus objectively measured. If our coffee drinkers were shown works of art, one after the other, then asked to rate them on the pleasure derived from looking at them, you would get a much wider variance of 'more' less' or 'the same as the last' responses than when guaging the temperature of the coffee. If there were an objective measure of beauty, as there is an objective measure of temperature, then this variation would suggest at the very least that the coffee drinkers cannot measure beauty as accurately as they can measure heat. This statue, near me, caused an outrage when it was built: www.isitbritish.co.uk Steve |
||
|
nf7mate 01-Jul-09, 13:01 |
Variance in judging beauty But just because many agree on beauty isn't proof of the objectivity of beauty, neither do those who disagree on beauty disprove objective beauty. If no one sees the baby laughing, is it any less beautiful? Or is it only beautiful if someone sees it and decides that it is beautiful? |
||
|
<<few would find maggots beautiful>> Perhaps they are the ones who have found real objective beauty, and we who find them repulsive are mistaken. <<If you show something to a large number of people and ask them if it is beautiful, then plot the answers on a graph, you will likely find trending.>> We are all human, there is bound to be some consensus. Isn't consensus subjectivity anyway? However, different groups would find different things appealing. even if we split the group into male/female, we could get radically different responses. Same applies to age groups, racial groups, faith groups. We can't all be expected to see beauty in the same things. And if we don't see beauty in the things most people find beautiful, or if we do see beauty in the things that disgust others, are we then wrong? <<If no one sees the baby laughing, is it any less beautiful? Or is it only beautiful if someone sees it and decides that it is beautiful?>> I'll stick my neck out here (for the sake of debate) and say that the baby is beautiful by consent. When the race of intelligent maggoty creatures from planet Maggot see the dry pink human offspring, they are repulsed, and the high pitched squeals emitting from its mouth (that we call laughter) makes them instinctively want to kill it. Steve |
||
|
obsteve 01-Jul-09, 13:55 |
Deleted by obsteve on 01-Jul-09, 13:55.
|
||
|
nf7mate 02-Jul-09, 07:46 |
Other Planets <<if we do see beauty in the things that disgust others, are we then wrong?>> If we are saying that the thing in question posses the quality of beauty and another says there is no beauty in the object, then either someone is wrong or 'beauty' means nothing about the object it describes. It's worth noting that there is probably some level beauty in all things, even maggots. What people debate is the amount of beauty in one object relative to others. To say an object is beautiful means that it has more beauty than most other things - that it is multiple standard deviations out on the right side of the bell curve. But to measure the relative beauty of several objects, there must be some standard you are measuring it against. If that standard is simply, "It makes me feel good feelings", then we are no longer making a statement about the object when we call it beautiful, we are making a statement about ourselves. Planet Maggot sounds like a fun B-movie waiting to happen. |
||
|
Planet Bizarro Whatever the reason, if you ask a random selection of Bizarrelings what 2 + 2 is, you will get a single answer- they will say 5. If you ask a random selection of humans what 2+2 is, you will get a single answer- they will say 4. However, if you ask a random selection of humans what the most beautiful man made object on the planet is, which has more beauty than all other man made objects, you will get a million different answers. According to you, only one answer can be right! (I will test this hypothosis on another thread). But we can never know which one is the right answer! And if you believe in beauty by consensus, do you also believe in morality by concensus? Or is the religion with the biggest following more likely to be the 'right' one? If there is an 'objective standard of beauty', other than "that which gives intense pleasure or deep satisfaction to the mind or senses ", then what is it? Could you suggest another, workable definition of beauty? <<either someone is wrong or 'beauty' means nothing about the object it describes.>> The latter. Beauty means nothing about the object described. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, or rather in the mind that contemplates the object. Steve |
||
|
nf7mate 03-Jul-09, 12:31 |
Beholding Beauty As with most philosophical debates, our disagreement appears to come down to the meaning of a word. I understand beauty as a quality of a thing that can be perceived (or not perceived) by a person, while you understand beauty as something that gives intense pleasure or deep satisfaction to the mind or senses of a person. I calmly reject the notion that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and maintain that beauty is found in the beheld. As far as an objective standard to measure beauty that does not depend upon human emotion, the answer is a simple one. Beauty is a display of the attributes of the Creator. The more accurately and clearly a thing displays the Creator’s attributes, the more beautiful it is. “When I admire the wonders of a sunset or the beauty of the moon, my soul expands in the worship of the creator.” -Gandhi |
||
|
Attributes of the Creator <<The more accurately and clearly a thing displays the Creator’s attributes, the more beautiful it is.>> A problem I have with this, is that our concept of the creator changes throughout history. I'm guessing that 'vengeful', 'wrathful' and 'jealous' don't figure among your concepts of beauty, although they do figure in both the Bible and Q'uran. If we use doctrine as a guide the Creator's attributes, aside from the difficulty of choosing which one, we're still left with the task of interpreting and sifting the doctrinal information. Could you be more specific about which attributes of the Creator you are considering as a measure of beauty? Steve |
||
|
nf7mate 07-Jul-09, 07:52 |
Examples Revenge, wrath, and jealousy can be beautiful in their proper place. The Odyssey is one of my favorite literary works, and it has a generous helping of all three. All things in the world are part of the creation and have varying degrees of beauty, depending on how accurately and clearly they display the Creator's attributes. Note I'm not talking about my concept of the Creator, but the Creator as he actually exists. My concept of the Creator could be wrong, and if it is, then my concept of beauty is likewise wrong. I don't have complete knowledge of the Creator, thus my understanding and appreciation of beauty is less than perfect. Just like everyone else's. So there is plenty of room to debate on what is more beautiful when comparing two things. But if beauty is only in the perception of the observer, why do we bother debating what is more beautiful? |
||
|
Creator and created Ok then, supposing this is true, when we say something is beautiful, we are saying the creator is beautiful, and what we perceive as beauty are the attributes of the creator within the perceived. And the most beautiful thing, absolute beauty, *is* the creator? Is this your stance? <<My concept of the Creator could be wrong, and if it is, then my concept of beauty is likewise wrong. I don't have complete knowledge of the Creator, thus my understanding and appreciation of beauty is less than perfect. Just like everyone else's.>> This is hard for me to understand. You are open to the possibility that you personally could find something utterly beautiful, yet this something might not actually be utterly beautiful? Here's a couple of questions: 1. Did the Creator create everything? 2. And can the Creator's attributes be found in all things He created (if you look hard enough)? 3. If so, is it possible to find all things potentially beautiful? I cite Blake- To see a World in a Grain of Sand And a Heaven in a Wild Flower, Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand And Eternity in an hour. Steve |
