Beauty: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of the Arts » Beauty » Beauty

Beauty

Page: 1 2 3 4

Beauty

saxystyk
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 04, 2008
Location: SoCal

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 3

Last Blog: Thinking Machine

Posted 06/04/08 - 04:28 PM:	#11
There is something here that people seem to be touching on but not truly explaining. Some call it order and disorder, or harmony and clashing; I call it unity and variety. Everything has these two components. (I pull some of these ideas from musical form.) It is human nature to find patterns, to see things as either similar or dissimilar. When there exists complete unity, say the sky being all of one shade of blue, with no variation in color, that can be considered beautiful because there is no variety. When variety is added, say the sun is setting and shades of orange and pink are present, the decision as to whether it is beautiful depends on the conditioning of the individual. No matter what is said, beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder. A prime example can be seen when studying music history. There was a time when thirds were never used, only the perfect fourth, perfect fifth, and octaves. Why? Because although there is variety that perfectly compliments each other. Now, people are conditioned to accept notes that are not even in the same key as the piece, and still consider it beautiful.
"There is no luck, only ones own perseverance and dedication" -Me

hyena in petticoat
Cheeky Possum.

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Dec 14, 2006
Location: Here.

Total Topics: 45
Total Posts: 1520

Posted 06/04/08 - 11:54 PM:	#12
Landlady wrote: Can we say, likewise, that when someone says that something is beautiful he is (technically) mistaken? It's either the concept of beauty is subject to a person's perception and he is right, or, there is an absolute standard of beauty independent of subjective perception and he is wrong. But then again, is there an absolute standard of beauty independent of subjective perception? I think the concept of beauty plays and varies depending on context (culture, individual, utility, etc.)
I need to get acquainted with sanity. Rantings, rantings and more rantings. Seriously.

scribbler
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 11, 2008
Location: London

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 16

Last Blog: I’ve Moved

Posted 06/20/08 - 11:39 AM:	#13
Can't beauty be--in a way--both subjective and objective at the same time. Nothing is beautiful in itself, because it requires a subjective observer to perceive the beauty. However, I think that people can be mistaken about beauty, in the same way that they can be mistaken about morality. But we would never say that morality is completely relative. What I think people mean when they say that a sunset isn't beautiful, is that the beauty of the sunset doesn't appeal to them. That's a sort of meta-judgement, but it's not a judgement of beauty.
I try never to fall into the trap of believing my own theories. http://mrcontrarian.wordpress.com/

alx429
The Dude

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 18, 2008
Location: Dallas, New York, Miami

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 15

Posted 06/20/08 - 12:36 PM:	#14
These are all really interesting thoughts. My belief in the matter hasn't really been touched on at all yet, so here's my two cents. Let's remember that we are animals and we are organisms. To me, that means we can break down beauty into something much simpler and more objective than an analysis on how the human mind perceives levels of unity or harmony. With the mention of the sunset, I tried to break it down and ask myself why do we see those colors and get any sort of feeling from them. The answer I found was: stimulus. A sunset is overwhelming is it not? Why? Our brains interpret the intensity of stimulus and in this case the bright colors engulfing the enormity of the sky create a high level of stimulus. In order for our brain to process the intensity of this image, our brain cells have to fire at high rates which results in the feeling of being stimulated. The sensation in a lot of ways is similar to posting in this forum. We all do it because we feel stimulated. In order to think about things in the depths we discuss here requires the same sort of high level brain functioning. Our neurons have to fire at high rates and we feel stimulated. Playing sports isn't much different either. Let's not forget that when we see a beautiful sunset, what comes first is the feeling we get from it and then we label it as something. Visual stimulus = beautiful Mental stimulus = interesting Audio stimulus = harmonious Physical stimulus = fun Of course I'm simplifying this a great deal, but my point is that our mind receives and interprets the stimulus (whatever it is) and then, based off of the intensity of it, we label it. Imagine yourself in a room that is pitch black. You are receiving no visual stimulus and I would highly expect that to not be a very pleasant place to be. Now think about looking at a dark and cloudy day. Again, not pleasant. You are receiving little stimulus. Now contrast that image with a clear bright sunny day. The sky is bright blue, the sun is yellow and illuminating the colors of everything around you. That's a signifiantly more pleasant image because the amount of stimulus you are receiving is much higher. You brain cells have to fire at a higher rate to take it all in. We are pretty remarkable beings aren't we? I definitely think so.
Anything matters.

mens_mentis
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 21, 2008

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 4

Posted 06/21/08 - 10:40 AM:	#15
scribbler wrote: Can't beauty be--in a way--both subjective and objective at the same time. Nothing is beautiful in itself, because it requires a subjective observer to perceive the beauty. However, I think that people can be mistaken about beauty, in the same way that they can be mistaken about morality. Things can't be objective and subjective at the same time. If beauty is an objective property (that is, something which people can be mistaken about), there must be an objective standard, in which case the subjective observer does not matter. This sounds like "does a tree make a sound if no one is around to hear it falling". Of course it does, the sound's properties (it's loudness, pitch) are objective; the perception of that sound is just extra. Edited by hyena in petticoat on 06/29/08 - 04:52 PM. Reason: Illiteracy.
And on the 6th day, the bum said "WILL KILL FOR FOOD!"

scribbler
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 11, 2008
Location: London

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 16

Last Blog: I’ve Moved

Posted 06/21/08 - 12:11 PM:	#16
mens_mentis wrote: things can't be objective and subjective at the same time. if beauty is an objective property (that is, something which people can be mistaken about), there must be an objective standard, in which case the subjective observer does not matter. In the strict sense, things can't be objective and subjective at the same time. What I meant was that there are objective standards of beauty, but since beauty is dependent on some deep part of the brain's constitution, once we know enough about the nature of the brain, a neuroscientist with no aesthetic sensitivity would be able to tell what is beautiful, and possibly even compose a beautiful painting. As for the "does a tree make a sound if no one is around to hear it falling" analogy, I think that's slightly false. This is because sound is certainly an objective part of the universe. That is to say, a deaf person could, with the right equipment, see that a sound was produced, even if he has no understanding of what a sound is. This is not true with beauty, because it is not strictly scientifically measurable--the best measure of beauty is aesthetic sensitivity.
I try never to fall into the trap of believing my own theories. http://mrcontrarian.wordpress.com/

Thomistic
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 29, 2006

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 787

Posted 07/06/08 - 01:19 PM:	#17
Beauty is goodness in being. Where is it? I suppose Kant would suggest that beauty and aesthetics are one in the same thing, but realistically beauty is something far more important than that. Aesthetics are relative or in the "eye of the beholder" undoubtably, but things can be beautiful even if they are not necessarily pleasing to the eyes. Such as a book that conveys a wonderful truth about human existence. Truth and beauty are the same. "Truth is beauty and beauty is truth." SOme have argued, "It is true to say that millions died during world war II, is that beautiful?" Of course it is not beautiful, because it is a lie. It is no lie to say that millions died, but it is a lie insofar as that reality was founded on hate and anything but goodness. It is a lie because the murder of those human beings was unjustified and selfish. And the people who did it, viewed it as a good thing. And it is a lie, because it was not a good thing at all. Truth and Beauty are the same, but there is depth to this quote from Shakespear.
"Truth Being and Beauty are all the same, but differ in the mind," - Aquinas "You cannot put a price on awesomeness" - Kung Fu Panda

Reformed Nihilist
Oblong

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 15, 2004
Location: The mighty fortress of the north

Total Topics: 68
Total Posts: 7921

Posted 07/11/08 - 01:41 PM:	#18
From a linguistic point of view, beauty is contained in an object. I song can be beautiful (full of beauty) much like a glass can be full of water. On both counts, claiming the fullness involves an act of judgement by the claimant, but they are still clearly different types of claims. What's the difference? The question (assuming the glass is at least mostly full) of the fullness of a glass is fairly uncontroversial accross a huge number of people, but the question of beauty is far more open to personal preference. From one person to another, judging the glass as full will meet their needs equally (uless they have reason to lie), but the pay off for beauty is not so obvious and will vary greatly from person to person. Given that, there appear still to be some common denominators (as people's emotional needs are often similar), and so there is a level of approximate intersubjectivity to beauty.
Nobody ever became a famous philosopher by being a champion of ecumenical hybridism Daniel Dennett Freedom Evolves

easyjacksn
Almost there...

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Oct 06, 2004
Location: Los Angeles

Total Topics: 35
Total Posts: 1210

Posted 07/11/08 - 02:22 PM:	#19
A sky can be dark and stormy and a sky can be beautiful. We consider the former objective and the latter subjective. Strange since it is the subject that projects both onto the sky. When I say, "the sky is dark and stormy" there is little room for disagreement; when I say, "the sky is beautiful" another can easily disagree. Perhaps I find dark, stormy skies to be beautiful while someone else finds them terrifying. Can it really be only room for disagreement that differentiates the two? I think there must be more. Perceiving beauty engages a way of experiencing something different from simply seeing its properties. The experience is one of feeling, not just seeing. So much more is attached to beauty that is personal. I would imagine that in order for two people to find the same thing beautiful, they must share not only biology, but prior experiences in common. Perhaps life has led me to find terrifying things to be beautiful while someone else to find them repulsive. The light levels and climatic conditions of the sky would hardly then be relevant.

Reformed Nihilist
Oblong

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 15, 2004
Location: The mighty fortress of the north

Total Topics: 68
Total Posts: 7921

Posted 07/11/08 - 02:50 PM:	#20
Certainly past experiences play a part, but there is strong evidence that certain tastes are largely driven by genetic factors.
Nobody ever became a famous philosopher by being a champion of ecumenical hybridism Daniel Dennett Freedom Evolves

Page: 1 2 3 4

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.