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

[Aloysium]

Does “Hound Dog” trump this?

youtube.com/watch?v=rCEB8JWSnU4

No comparison. One song may get you rockin’, the other brings a tear at its celebration of the love, the commitment, and the joy at the end of the hardships encountered during the course of a relationship.
It is said that the proof of God lies in the existence of beauty.
The fact is that anything beautiful reveals some aspect of God. Once realized, He is seen everywhere.

 

[Mongo]

Beauty, truth, and goodness are the foundation of knowledge. They are objective realities; or to be more precise they are the reflection of the objective reality of God. Through them you can know God. Without them, the reality of God becomes just an assertion. He becomes the big man in the sky. The reality is that God is reflected in his creation.

When beauty becomes purely subjective, so does truth and goodness. Morality is reduced to subjectivity and consequently just one opinion among many. If beauty is objective, then not only is one act objectively good while another is objectively evil, but one way of life becomes objectively more beautiful and better. Beauty isn’t just physical, although the physical is a necessary part of it.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

.The fact is that anything beautiful reveals some aspect of God. Once realized, He is seen everywhere.

Even in hound dogs!

See Francis Thompson’s “The Hound of Heaven”.

 

[inocente]

As I said in my last post.

“The fact that we cannot prove that something is more beautiful than something else is related to the fact that beauty requires no proof. It is experienced in the heart, not in the head.”

The fact that a thing of the heart cannot objectively be proven to others to be more beautiful than another thing is no warrant to say that it therefore cannot be objectively more beautiful than another thing.

If you want to reduce all propositions to being proven by logic when logic does not even apply, go right ahead. It’s a waste of time. You cannot objectively prove to the complete satisfaction of others that God exists. Does that mean to you that objectively God does not exist, and is only a figment of subjective imagination?

We’re in a philosophy forum, and philosophy relies on being systematic and rational. It’s a contradiction in terms to say, as you say here, that logic doesn’t apply to something which you claim is objectively true. I think your Church asserts that God can be known through reason. If it asserts the same of beauty then let’s see the reference, but then your Church would be at odds with what you say here.

Also, you seem to be mixing a priori with a posteriori. An a priori proposition is independent of experience and so relies on proof, and you’ve not given any proof of the existence of beauty outside of our thoughts.

On the other hand an a posteriori proposition, meaning based on past experience, can never be proven. Everything in science is in that boat, since it’s all based on past events, which is no guarantee of future events. An a posteriori proposition is instead asserted by probability, which depends on weight of evidence, and you’ve not provided any evidence that beauty exists outside of our thoughts.

Ah, but they do. Both are musical. What separates Presley from Bernstein is the vulgarity of “Hound Dog” and the sublimity of “Ave Verum Corpus.”.

But of course for a Protestant the sublimity of “Ave” cannot be allowed since it is either false, saccharine, or downright Catholic.

Well no, there are thousands of genres of music in the world and there’s no good reason to pulp them all together, as if on an America’s Got Talent variety show.

Also, if I remember right you’re in Texas. Now for all I know you may be surrounded by squalid little redneck sectarian bigots there, but I’m not one of them. What I said is that the Bernstein is too saccharine, I wasn’t referring to the Ave, and if you can’t tell the difference between various versions of the Ave, others can.

Does “Hound Dog” trump this?

youtube.com/watch?v=rCEB8JWSnU4

GOVERNMENT HEATH WARNING - Listening to cloying sugary sentimental syrup contributes to obesity, diabetes and tooth decay.

 

[Peter_Plato]

An a posteriori proposition is instead asserted by probability, which depends on weight of evidence, and you’ve not provided any evidence that beauty exists outside of our thoughts.

And you’ve not given any evidence that you think anything at all can be “proven” to exist outside of your thoughts about it. Ergo, it seems a waste of time to try to “prove” anything at all to you since you are very arbitrary about what you will or won’t accept as existing outside of your thoughts, as evidence, in any case.

By the way - and I’ve made this point before - the “corner” you insist you have “boxed” the case for beauty in is the same corner that the cases for goodness, truth, morality, the existence of God are also in.

There is no “evidence” in your mind for any of these and neither are proofs, according to you, possible for any of them, yet you appear to believe in God and morality, truth and goodness, without “evidence” that these exist outside of your thoughts about them, nor do you offer a priori “proofs” for any of these, either.

Seems a tad arbitrary of you to accept some things without evidence and absent the possibility of any proof, yet you still accept them.

This is, by no means, a concession to your position that determinations of beauty are merely subjective. It is merely pointing out that you are not being consistent in claiming beauty is merely subjective, but morality, truth and the existence of God are not.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Listening to cloying sugary sentimental syrup contributes to obesity, diabetes and tooth decay.

Would this be an “objective” determination of aesthetics on your part?

It would seem so, since you think it has sufficient objective warrant such that it should be applied as public policy.

Or are you merely imposing your subjective views on everyone, arbitrarily?

I dislike sugary syrup, therefore everyone ought to be banned from having access to it.

Again, consistency, much?

 

[inocente]

You do realize that all music is comprised of “certain sounds” such as chords, melodies, harmonies, vocal richness and expression, etc., etc.,

You originally said you “would surmise that God has created certain sounds, captured in Gilmour’s music and vocals, that resonate with the human soul in such a way as to put listeners into touch with the beauty that is integral to the essential nature of Being itself.”

If instead you meant all music, does that mean you intended to include, along with Gilmour’s dirges , every advertizing jingle and piece of elevator music, since they too are comprised of “certain sounds” such as chords, melodies, harmonies, etc.?

Some people think this is beautiful: youtube.com/watch?v=MS82nF85_gA

It’s got all your “God created” elements. Just not necessarily in the right order .

 

[inocente]

Would this be an “objective” determination of aesthetics on your part?

It would seem so, since you think it has sufficient objective warrant such that it should be applied as public policy.

Or are you merely imposing your subjective views on everyone, arbitrarily?

I dislike sugary syrup, therefore everyone ought to be banned from having access to it.

Again, consistency, much?

If I remember correctly, I’m arguing that beauty is subjective, and you that it’s objective.

If you guys post sentimental sugar as examples of what you think is objectively beautiful, you really shouldn’t complain if others protest. When posting White Anglo-Saxon Protestant country music, at least make it AKUS or Lovett, something us Latins can enjoy. youtube.com/watch?v=hpM8FjO4Vko

Anyway, it’s objectively a heat wave here today so I’m off to listen to the bee-eaters.

 

[Peter_Plato]

You originally said you “would surmise that God has created certain sounds, captured in Gilmour’s music and vocals, that resonate with the human soul in such a way as to put listeners into touch with the beauty that is integral to the essential nature of Being itself.”

If instead you meant all music, does that mean you intended to include, along with Gilmour’s dirges , every advertizing jingle and piece of elevator music, since they too are comprised of “certain sounds” such as chords, melodies, harmonies, etc.?

Some people think this is beautiful: youtube.com/watch?v=MS82nF85_gA

It’s got all your “God created” elements. Just not necessarily in the right order .

Ah, yes, but the “right order” is one of those elements that DO count towards beauty.

Contrary to Bradski - who thinks beauty, if it is anything, must be one element like colour or intensity possessed by objects - I do suppose beauty is multi-dimensional and multimodal.

Just as musical instruments require proper tuning to produce those “certain sounds,” our receptivity requires proper tuning to receive and appreciate them.

Or are you claiming tuning of instruments is an objective waste of time?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

We’re in a philosophy forum, and philosophy relies on being systematic and rational. It’s a contradiction in terms to say, as you say here, that logic doesn’t apply to something which you claim is objectively true. I think your Church asserts that God can be known through reason. If it asserts the same of beauty then let’s see the reference, but then your Church would be at odds with what you say here.

Also, you seem to be mixing a priori with a posteriori. An a priori proposition is independent of experience and so relies on proof, and you’ve not given any proof of the existence of beauty outside of our thoughts.

On the other hand an a posteriori proposition, meaning based on past experience, can never be proven. Everything in science is in that boat, since it’s all based on past events, which is no guarantee of future events. An a posteriori proposition is instead asserted by probability, which depends on weight of evidence, and you’ve not provided any evidence that beauty exists outside of our thoughts.

Well no, there are thousands of genres of music in the world and there’s no good reason to pulp them all together, as if on an America’s Got Talent variety show.

Also, if I remember right you’re in Texas. Now for all I know you may be surrounded by squalid little redneck sectarian bigots there, but I’m not one of them. What I said is that the Bernstein is too saccharine, I wasn’t referring to the Ave, and if you can’t tell the difference between various versions of the Ave, others can.

GOVERNMENT HEATH WARNING - Listening to **cloying sugary sentimental syrup **contributes to obesity, diabetes and tooth decay.

It’s curious (and furious, no?) that you condemn appeals to the heart in music as cloying sentimentality. If I’m not mistaken, you as a Baptist have said on other threads that you have no creed. That being the case, you have no need to prove anything since you are free to believe anything you like.

How is that anything short of cloying sentimentality?

The role of emotion in human affairs is a legitimate topic for philosophers to pursue. And there are many great philosophers who are stumped by their inability to explain or prove or reason through many propositions.

Bernstein’s version of the Ave is sublime, not cloying sentimentality. I cannot prove that to you. You either get it or you don’t.

 

[Aloysium]

There is something about music that makes it celestial.
Heavenly choirs eternally sing hymns of praise.
We get glimmers of that glory here on earth, which artists who are not totally absorbed in self-expression, will try to relate.

 

[inocente]

Ah, yes, but the “right order” is one of those elements that DO count towards beauty.

Contrary to Bradski - who thinks beauty, if it is anything, must be one element like colour or intensity possessed by objects - I do suppose beauty is multi-dimensional and multimodal.

Just as musical instruments require proper tuning to produce those “certain sounds,” our receptivity requires proper tuning to receive and appreciate them.

Or are you claiming tuning of instruments is an objective waste of time?

And which tuning system did God create to produce those “certain sounds” which “resonate with the human soul” etc? Just intonation? Equal temperament? Another?

And as I asked before, did God create the “certain sounds” of the saxophone or a kazoo or a Roland JD-XA?

How about a dog whistle, with tones too high for humans to hear? Did God not create dog whistles?

How about Chinese opera? Stockhausen’s Sirius? Glass’ Einstein On The Beach? Or did God only create Taylor Swift (I’m guessing the latter, given the > billion view count).

Sorry, all your arguments are inherently relativist to your own tastes, and I think this thread ran its course several days back. You have the last word if you want, see you around.

 

[inocente]

It’s curious (and furious, no?) that you condemn appeals to the heart in music as cloying sentimentality. If I’m not mistaken, you as a Baptist have said on other threads that you have no creed. That being the case, you have no need to prove anything since you are free to believe anything you like.

How is that anything short of cloying sentimentality?

Well, it’s no wonder you got yourself confused there, maybe that argument sounded better in your head .

*The role of emotion in human affairs is a legitimate topic for philosophers to pursue. And there are many great philosophers who are stumped by their inability to explain or prove or reason through many propositions.

Bernstein’s version of the Ave is sublime, not cloying sentimentality. I cannot prove that to you. You either get it or you don’t. *

What you have proven is that you, like everyone else, have your own musical tastes. As a Catholic you presumably believe God created you as an individual. Your tastes in music are part of what make you an individual. If everyone liked exactly the same music then we wouldn’t talk of tastes, but then we wouldn’t be individuals, we’d be clones.

Also, I think recorded music, hearing the same version over and over again, may tempt us to believe musicians are divinely inspired, involved in some magic, when they are professionals collaborating to get a job done. Bernstein was, I think, better at music he himself composed, such as the Chichester Psalms. As you like him, here he is with a scratch orchestra recording numbers from West Side Story (you may have seen this on TV years’ ago). Watch from 4:00 for a couple of minutes and 38:00 for six minutes to see what I mean about professionals rather than magic.

I think the thread has run its course, you have the last word if you want, see you around.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Well, it’s no wonder you got yourself confused there, maybe that argument sounded better in your head .

Seems no one is more confused than the one who claims this:

What you have proven is that you, like everyone else, have your own musical tastes.

And then goes on to make a statement such as this (as if “better” has some objective meaning when you just finished insisting that it doesn’t

Bernstein was, I think, better at music he himself composed, such as the Chichester Psalms.

Now, of course, you will argue that the “I think” makes it subjective, but if it really does why would you bother to make the point to begin with as if there were some genuinely settle-able question to discuss? Your actions speak louder than your words and betray you.

 

[Peter_Plato]

And which tuning system did God create to produce those “certain sounds” which “resonate with the human soul” etc? Just intonation? Equal temperament? Another?

And as I asked before, did God create the “certain sounds” of the saxophone or a kazoo or a Roland JD-XA?

How about a dog whistle, with tones too high for humans to hear? Did God not create dog whistles?

How about Chinese opera? Stockhausen’s Sirius? Glass’ Einstein On The Beach? Or did God only create Taylor Swift (I’m guessing the latter, given the > billion view count).

Sorry, all your arguments are inherently relativist to your own tastes, and I think this thread ran its course several days back. You have the last word if you want, see you around.

I am sure that you know as well as anyone who, exactly, “created” dog whistles, why they were “created” and why they work.

I am not clear what the question of “creating” or making artifacts has to do with beauty, per se, but your point seems to be clearly targeting your own position.

Consider this: if, by definition, “beauty” is purely subjective, then every question you have asked can be aimed squarely at you.

On every one of these questions…

How about Chinese opera? Stockhausen’s Sirius? Glass’ Einstein On The Beach? Or did God only create Taylor Swift (I’m guessing the latter, given the > billion view count).

…you MUST, by the implication of your own claim - that “beauty” is purely subjectively determined - insist that Chinese opera, Stockhausen’s Sirius, Glass’ Einstein on the Beach and Taylor Swift’s music are “beautiful,” since beautiful is merely determined by whatever anyone’s subjective preferences say it is.

For you, all of these are ‘beautiful’ purely as a matter of definition, as if there was nothing else to be said about the matter. Ah, but there is BECAUSE these pieces are not self-evidently beautiful to everyone.

For me, since, I insist that beauty is an objective trait, the question as to which of these pieces is truly beautiful is an open question. One worth discussing in order to try to get at what beauty is and how we would know when we hear/see/experience it.

For you, the question is settled. Whatever anyone says they think is beautiful, IS BEAUTIFUL simply as a matter of their preference. Case closed. No point in discussing it.

For me, there is a point in discussing it, but clearly you are not the person to open a discussion with since you have made up your mind. Which is why your final comment is telling. You have no interest in discussing the question with an open mind and, astonishingly, make the point that everyone else’s arguments are “inherently relativistic,” as if merely stating THAT ends the argument.

Sorry, all your arguments are inherently relativist to your own tastes, and I think this thread ran its course several days back. You have the last word if you want, see you around.

You are simply projecting your closed mind onto others as if you having made up your mind that beauty is nothing but subjective preference closes the case for everyone. You may as well plug your ears and go along singing, “La la la lala,” which is the basic thrust of your “argument.”

 

[St_Redemption]

If I claim, “That painting is beautiful!” and you – being your typical disagreeable self – say, “No it isn’t, it’s ugly,” what you are admitting is that an objective standard of beauty exists and that painting doesn’t meet the standard.

This, I think, is the proper answer to the question. It applies to other issues of subjectivity/objectivity as well ie-morality.

I’ve read a lot of books on demonology and a lot of eye witness accounts of exorcism etc. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the demonic smell terrible and they look hideous. While the apparent presence of the Lord, post-exorcism, brings with it a smell of flowers. The play of the demonic aura on the senses seems rather uniformly disagreeable to the senses of the masses while the that of The Lord and His Angels is unifromly agreeable. I think this states something about the God-given objectivity of His Universe. Of course to the non-believer though, this is could be no argument.

 

[inocente]

For me, there is a point in discussing it, but clearly you are not the person to open a discussion with since you have made up your mind. Which is why your final comment is telling. You have no interest in discussing the question with an open mind and, astonishingly, make the point that everyone else’s arguments are “inherently relativistic,” as if merely stating THAT ends the argument.

You are simply projecting your closed mind onto others as if you having made up your mind that beauty is nothing but subjective preference closes the case for everyone. You may as well plug your ears and go along singing, “La la la lala,” which is the basic thrust of your “argument.”

I was very interested in discussing the subject and we’ve had a long conversation about it, but for some days I’ve not felt you’ve made any good rational arguments, and so haven’t found the discussion challenging.

That’s my subjective feeling, and rather than say it out loud I said thanks for the conversation, you can have the last word. I didn’t expect you to come back with such a lack of civility, but I guess maybe you were hoping that playground taunts might bring me back. Nope. I’m unsubscribing straight after posting this, so by all means continue to let your testosterone speak objectively for you, bye bye, see you around.

 

[Aloysium]

I’ve got this lacquered and mounted on a wooden backing, hanging on a cottage wall:

View attachment 22087

My women friends wouldn’t put it on their walls but they get what I derive from it. It has its own, albeit eccentric, beauty.

They get it because there is an objective reality that includes movies, television and books dedicated to science fiction. Generations were raised on fantasies based on what we have in the last hundred years discovered about our world.
For some reason there is some sort of inclination for some people to reduce everything to those scientific abstractions that help us manipulate matter, as if they (although ironically, completely in the imagination) were the only reality.
When one speaks of objective beauty, to some it is as if one were suggesting something ridiculous like the existence of some beauty boson.

Just look around and the beauty is all there to be perceived and understood. It is not something projected onto meaningless matter.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

When one speaks of objective beauty, to some it is as if one were suggesting something ridiculous like the existence of some beauty boson.

Well and good for the crass materialist.

But since beauty is metaphysical, and the materialist will not suffer metaphysics, he will not suffer the objective existence of the beautiful.

For the same reason, he will not likely suffer the objective existence of God. Hence you have the atheist psychologists who presume that all the gods of history are mere astral projections of the inner Self.

Nor will the materialist allow objective truth because that boson also will never be found.

 

[oldcelt]

Well and good for the crass materialist.

But since beauty is metaphysical, and the materialist will not suffer metaphysics, he will not suffer the objective existence of the beautiful.

For the same reason, he will not likely suffer the objective existence of God. Hence you have the atheist psychologists who presume that all the gods of history are mere astral projections of the inner Self.

Nor will the materialist allow objective truth because that boson also will never be found.

I think you answered the OP…meaning…beauty is subjective. Objective beauty is a matter of faith.

John