Is beauty really subjective or is it objectively determined by God?

[MysticMissMisty]

Salvete, omnes!

It has been a common belief that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”, i.e., that it is subjectively rather than objectively determined.

However, in Luke 12:27, Jesus Christ Himself seems to state that the lilies of the field more fbeautiful than Solomon in his greatest glory of raiment ever was.

So, if Christ Himself said that the lilies were objectively more beautiful than Solomon in his most glorious raiment, how are we to say tha beauty, at least comparative beauty, is subjective and “in the eye of the beholder”? If Jesus Christ, Who is All-Knowing and Who is God Incarnate, says that one thing is more beautiful than another, how can we say that beauty is determined subjectively by each individual and not objective by God Himself?

Is this perhaps a case of only one instance wherein one thing is comparatively more beautiful than another? Maybe all people do, or, at least, are supposed to, consider the specifi lilies to which Christ refers as objectively more beautiful than was Solomon in his finest raiment. However, what ifthere are some people who would disagree, i.e., who subjectively consider Solomon is the more beautiful? Would they be wrong here and should they correct their wrong perceptions? What does this say for other things we may subjectively consider more or less beautiful, or even ugly? Should we always have to correct our standards to God’s standards of beauty? If so, how do we discover ever what every one of those standards are?

Is perhaps Christ not objectively saying here that Solomon is more beautiful but that most, if not all, people of His time considered the lilies more beautiful than Solomon in finest attire? He may have been saying that the lilies neither toil nor spin, but you all still consider them to have greater beauty than Solomon ever had.

However, we must also consider that, in this passage, Christ doesn’t just say that Solomon was apparently less glorious than the lilies; He seems to emphasize the truth ofthis by saying something along the lines of one of those “truly, I say unto you” statements to modify His assertion. This would, once again, seem to support some objective, even divinely-determined, standard of beauty.

Is Christ here perhaps being more subtle in His comparison than we might initially think? I mean that, perhaps He is saying that, after all the labor and toil that went into the making of Solomon’s attire, he was not so beautiful as are the lilies who, compared to Solomon, did nothing to make themselves so beautiful.

What are your thoughts on beauty as objectively determined by God vs. as subjectively determined by men in light of the above passage in question? Would you agree or disagree with any of my proposals above? Why or why not? Or, rather, would you posit some other entirely different interpretation/understanding of this passage in light of our question of beauty’s objectivity/subjectivity?

Is there indeed any Church teaching on beauty and how it should be understood? Anything absolutely and positively authoritative?

Thoughts? Opinions? Assertions? Other information we should consider?

Gratias maximas!

 

[Charlemagne_III]

A thing is objectively beautiful or ugly in itself because it possesses the traits of beauty or ugliness. These traits cannot be ignored as criteria for the experience of the beautiful or the ugly.

However, the human mind is subjective in its approach to reality. It often errs as to beauty, truth, and goodness. For whatever reasons, these errors signify that the human mind has gone amiss from the beautiful, the true, and the good. The mind can work its way back, often with the greatest difficulty. But that is a common experience of the conversion of our souls from sin (the apparent good) to virtue (the real good).

God in himself is good and true and beautiful.

The devil in himself is bad and false and ugly.

 

[Lucretius]

There’s way too much to be said on the topic of Beauty, but St. Thomas taught that all the Transcentals (Truth, Being, Beauty, Goodness, etc.) are all ultimately interchangeable. To put it another way, truthful things are beautiful, as are good things, and the fact that things “are” in the most straight way possible, is beautiful in itself.

St. Bonaventure (following St. Augustine’s neo-platonic thought) wrote this:

Since, therefore, all things are beautiful and in some way delightful, and beauty and delight do not exit apart from proportion, and proportion is primarily in number, it needs must be that all things are subject to number. And for this reason number is the outstanding exemplar in the mind of the Maker, and in things it is the outstanding trace leading to wisdom.

In other words, mathematics and beauty are very much related

You know who writes a lot about beauty? Dr. Peter Kreeft! You might want to look into his writings and talks. Here’s a lecture on “Language of Beauty:” peterkreeft.com/audio/31_lotr_language-beauty.htm

Here’s this: youtube.com/watch?v=WUHSeBL4uFE&safe=active

And this: youtube.com/watch?v=66Xg69pzvEM&safe=active

And this: youtube.com/watch?v=a4Io9nkV4HQ&safe=active

Christi pax,

Lucretius

St. Henry, pray for us!

 

[Bradski]

A thing is objectively beautiful or ugly in itself because it possesses the traits of beauty or ugliness.

How do you personally know if something is objectively beautiful or ugly?

 

[Lily_Bernans]

How do you personally know if something is objectively beautiful or ugly?

I was going to ask the same question. Beauty changes with the times. Hundreds of years ago, a thin woman would not have been deemed attractive at all (think of all those heavy-set women painted by Rubens and Titian), and men had to be muscular (I guess not much has changed there). Today, an “Rubenesque woman” would be deemed “fat” by most males and some females. Although most men seem to find long hair most attractive, I have known men who prefer short hair and call long hair a “rat’s nest” even if it is perfectly groomed.

Human beings aside, I think objective beauty is possessing what should be there, and possessing what should be there in the most perfect form. A tree’s shape, a flower’s petals, a perfectly formed orange, etc. A misshapen tree, a wilted flower, a withered piece of fruit, will be perceived as “not beautiful” by almost everyone.

 

[ynotzap]

As I see it: The closer a thing is to perfection will determine how beautiful it is. Perfection is beauty, found in existing things. A face, a flower, a personality, a work of art, a design, an act, a composition, in nature, in space, it is all a refection of the work of a Supreme Artist, who is Beauty itself. A Creator who leaves His impression on all His works. And He is supremely , and infinitely delightful, and ecstatic.

 

[Bradski]

As I see it: The closer a thing is to perfection will determine how beautiful it is.

A perfect cancer cell? A perfect Ebola virus? I heard that the ovens at Auschwitz worked perfectly.

 

[Peter_Plato]

How do you personally know if something is objectively beautiful or ugly?

Well some things are obviously beautiful and some not so much. At least there can be a kind of “gross” determination of beauty even if many human beings are not adept enought at identifying beauty to give an account that might be convincing.

I would suggest that objective beauty is something that requires the development of an “eye” to identify. Just as objective morality requires a mature and properly developed conscience to make accurate assessment concerning right and wrong, I would suggest objective beauty requires the development of a discerning capacity to see beauty and properly give an accounting of it.

This might provide, at least, an inkling into a “rough” determination.

youtu.be/lNI07egoefc

I doubt very much that disagreement is, in itself, a reason to doubt that objective beauty exists, since disagreement about science and mathematical principles have also occurred in the past, it’s just that we haven’t as a collection of beings spend sufficient time and resources on the question to properly address it.

 

[Bradski]

Well some things are obviously beautiful and some not so much.

Charles said some things are objectively beautiful and I asked him how he personally knew. I’ll ask you the same thing. Is a Dave Gilmour solo objectively beautiful? And also…if we disagree that something is beautiful, how do we know who is correct?

I would suggest objective beauty requires the development of a discerning capacity to see beauty and properly give an accounting of it.

Ah, so you might have already developed this so you’d be the one to determine. Except that I claim the same thing, so I claim that right. Which leads to the same problem: How do we know who is correct?

I doubt very much that disagreement is, in itself, a reason to doubt that objective beauty exists…

Actually, it’s the only game in town. Everyone agreeing on something does not make it objective. But it only takes one person to truthfully disagree as to their preference of something to make it subjective. It’s the very definition of subjective and unless you want to redefine the word, you are stuck with it.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

A perfect cancer cell? A perfect Ebola virus? I heard that the ovens at Auschwitz worked perfectly.

A cancer cell cannot be perfect since it is the corruption of a perfect cell. And cancerous lungs are ugly.

The ovens at Auschwitz were created by evil men for evil purposes. They can only be said to work perfectly from the devil’s point of view. And the devil is ugly.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Charles said some things are objectively beautiful and I asked him how he personally knew. I’ll ask you the same thing. Is a Dave Gilmour solo objectively beautiful? And also…if we disagree that something is beautiful, how do we know who is correct?

The objectively beautiful is recognized as such by many, and not recognized by others because they lack the refinement of soul that recognizes the beautiful when it appears, as Peter says.

If we disagree that something is beautiful, there is no need for us to emphasize that disagreement unless we are professional critics and the reputation for our refinement of soul is at stake.

There are no imperfect works of art in nature. Everything is beautiful.

Only when men tamper with nature does it begin to show scars of ugliness, as in the pictures of the victims of Auschwitz in heaping piles plowed into a mass grave.

Intrinsically ugly except to the devil and those owned by the devil.

 

[ynotzap]

A perfect cancer cell? A perfect Ebola virus? I heard that the ovens at Auschwitz worked perfectly.

Nothing is evil in itself, evil can only exist as non-being, the absence of the good. And only intelligent beings can commit evil. All that God creates is good in itself. When intelligent beings act un-intelligently, irrationally intentionally, there is evil because they were created to act rationally according to the truth which is good. Snake venom was used to create blood-pressure medicine, and also is good for the snake to survive. Cancer cells do what they are supposed to do, they make no choice, like a bullet, it goes where it is aimed, there is no right or wrong involved in the thing itself, or evil. Sin brought evil into the world and into creation, disease and corruption, and death, great disorder as a consequence.

 

[Bradski]

The ovens at Auschwitz were created by evil men for evil purposes. They can only be said to work perfectly from the devil’s point of view. And the devil is ugly.

So do we need to know what something is to be used for until we can say if it’s beautiful or not? Is a Purdey shotgun beautiful? Its raison d’etre is to blow things apart. If I showed you a perfectly made Japanese sword, how would you know if it was beautiful or not? Do you have to know if a woman is evil or not before you can describe her as beautiful?

Bradski: Check out this medieval axe Charles. Look at the workmanship. Isn’t it beautiful?
Charles: I don’t know.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Actually, it’s the only game in town. Everyone agreeing on something does not make it objective.

And conversely some disagreeing on something does not render it necessarily subjective either.

There is a difference between a Beethoven, Mozart or Handel composition and clattering pots in C sharp.

Now merely because Philistines like you and I cannot explicate why one composition is more beautiful than another does not mean such an accounting cannot be given.

But it only takes one person to truthfully disagree as to their preference of something to make it subjective. It’s the very definition of subjective and unless you want to redefine the word, you are stuck with it.

No it doesn’t. A group of Philistines disagreeing does not render a decision subjective.

 

[Bradski]

The objectively beautiful is recognized as such by many, and not recognized by others because they lack the refinement of soul that recognizes the beautiful when it appears, as Peter says.

I claim I have it. I know what is beautiful and what isn’t. Do you have it? Can you tell what is objectively beautiful as well? Because if you can’t, the field is mine. It’s my call. If you can, then tell me how we know which one of us is right.

If we disagree that something is beautiful, there is no need for us to emphasize that disagreement unless we are professional critics and the reputation for our refinement of soul is at stake.

Whoa no, Charles. This isn’t the two of us disagreeing on whether a painting is worth hanging on the wall. This is you making the claim that things are objectively beautiful. Let’s see your argument.

There are no imperfect works of art in nature. Everything is beautiful.

You’ve never seen a lion eating a gazelle alive.

And what about that axe?

 

[Bradski]

And conversely some disagreeing on something does not render it necessarily subjective either.

Then what is your definition of subjective? It must be different to mine.

There is a difference between a Beethoven, Mozart or Handel composition and clattering pots in C sharp.

Hmmm. Taking the easy way out I see… Next it’ll be Van Gogh versus a chimp. Or Days of Our Lives versus Macbeth. So let me try this:

If you declare that things are objectively beautiful, then it follows that some things are more (objectively) beautiful than others: ‘This painting X has an objective beauty and it is greater than painting Y’ (otherwise you have to say that all painting are equally beautiful – a nonsensical proposition). So you could line up a thousand paintings from least beautiful to most beautiful on their relative (objective) beauty.

If that is the case, then you are saying that any two people with the discernment to tell beauty objectively would line those paintings up in exactly the same way. In fact, if you had a thousand people with that discernment, then they would all do exactly the same.

Naturally, that is impossible. Either there is no objective beauty or (as you might suggest) there are no two people that have that ability, let alone a thousand. Is there one? Are you saying that there is one person with this ability to discern objective beauty?

If there is no-one that can discern it, then how do you know it exists?

 

[Peter_Plato]

If that is the case, then you are saying that any two people with the discernment to tell beauty objectively would line those paintings up in exactly the same way. In fact, if you had a thousand people with that discernment, then they would all do exactly the same.

Naturally, that is impossible. Either there is no objective beauty or (as you might suggest) there are no two people that have that ability, let alone a thousand. Is there one? Are you saying that there is one person with this ability to discern objective beauty?

If there is no-one that can discern it, then how do you know it exists?

Actually, what I am saying is that, in principle, any number of beings with an intact capacity to see beauty ought to see objective beauty in the same way.

That says nothing about which individuals precisely they would be, but a start would be that those who can explicate their views of beauty in a compelling way may provide insight into objectivity.

This isn’t new by any means. I would argue that knowledge and morals are objective in much the same way as beauty and (take note) both knowledge of reality and ethical questions are also subject to dispute. Merely because there is disagreement over an issue does not entail the issue is, therefore, to be subjectively determined.

We’ve been through all this before, by the way, and you know where I stand on the issue.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Hmmm. Taking the easy way out I see… Next it’ll be Van Gogh versus a chimp. Or Days of Our Lives versus Macbeth.

Why would this be the “easy way out?”

If we start by making “gross” determinations where some characteristics of beauty are clearly distinguishable, perhaps, then, it will be possible to refine the discernible characteristics and more finely make determinations where the beauty of things is less “easy” to identify or glimpse.

Any skill or talent starts the same way – perfect the “gross” skills first then gradually refine. Piano players begin with Chopsticks and work their way to gradually more difficult challenges.

Begin with Van Gough vs a chimp and work towards Jackson Pollock vs a painter’s apron.

 

[Bradski]

Actually, what I am saying is that, in principle, any number of beings with an intact capacity to see beauty ought to see objective beauty in the same way. That says nothing about which individuals precisely they would be, but a start would be that those who can explicate their views of beauty in a compelling way may provide insight into objectivity.

Let’s say that most people would agree that a pair of dirty socks aren’t as beautiful as a rose. The socks over there on the left and the rose on the right. Everything else – literally everything else, is either more or less beautiful than the socks or the rose. You are saying that, in principle, we can fix everything in this beauty line up. Otherwise, how can you differentiate? You can’t give things a ‘Beauty Score’.

So everything, literally, is either more or less beautiful than, literally, anything else. In other words, any given item is relatively more beautiful than any other. But hey – what happened to Objective Beauty?

We’ve been through all this before, by the way, and you know where I stand on the issue.

Oh yeah…

Begin with Van Gough vs a chimp and work towards Jackson Pollock vs a painter’s apron.

The second example is the same as the first. Why not a Van Gogh versus the Jackson Pollock? If someone says that one is more beautiful than the other, how do you know? What happens if all the people that you accept can ‘explicate their views of beauty in a compelling way’ tell you that Blue Poles is more beautiful than Irises? If you don’t like Pollock’s paintings, then you have two choices. Accept that you were wrong (‘I really thought Irises was more beautiful, but apparently…’) or claim that the people telling you this are wrong. In which case, objective beauty simply means everything that you decide is objectively beautiful.

What happens if one of these discerning people tells you that ‘Islands in the Stream’ is more beautiful than ‘Comfortably Numb’? You know what? You would reject every single statement regarding beauty with which you didn’t agree. Otherwise, do you know what you are saying when you compare two things? You are saying: ‘As far as I can tell, I think it’s that one. But of course, I may be wrong.’

By the way, do you like Retsina? Balut?

 

[Peter_Plato]

The second example is the same as the first. Why not a Van Gogh versus the Jackson Pollock? If someone says that one is more beautiful than the other, how do you know? What happens if all the people that you accept can ‘explicate their views of beauty in a compelling way’ tell you that Blue Poles is more beautiful than Irises? If you don’t like Pollock’s paintings, then you have two choices. Accept that you were wrong (‘I really thought Irises was more beautiful, but apparently…’) or claim that the people telling you this are wrong. In which case, objective beauty simply means everything that you decide is objectively beautiful.

What happens if one of these discerning people tells you that ‘Islands in the Stream’ is more beautiful than ‘Comfortably Numb’? You know what? You would reject every single statement regarding beauty with which you didn’t agree. Otherwise, do you know what you are saying when you compare two things? You are saying: ‘As far as I can tell, I think it’s that one. But of course, I may be wrong.’

Your assumption is that the aspect of beauty is one dimensional. That may not be true either. Recall the wise men and the elephant.

Perhaps ‘Islands in the Stream’ is more beautiful in some respects, but ‘Comfortably Numb’ in others. I never claimed that discerning beauty would be easy or obvious even to aesthetic numbskulls, I merely claimed that beauty is not necessarily subjective just because it creates disputes or that individuals do not see things through the same lense. It may turn out that two individuals are both in error, as it may turn out that both Newton and Einstein may have flawed theories of the workings of the universe. Doesn’t make the universe a subjective entity, does it?