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

[Aloysium]

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

John

Beauty as the truth revealed, is subjective only in the sense that a sentinent being is required. As with love and knowledge, one must cultivate the mind and open one’s heart to appreciate it. Not everyone sees the beauty and truth of any particular object. To say that it is a matter of faith to consider a classic piece of art, architecture, music or literature or some natural wonder beautiful in itself, sounds like one is simply pushing a particular philosophical position in the face of all reason.

When someone goes further to say all creation is beautiful and revealing of our Lord, that person is speaking from their heart.
If One chooses to believe such a statement in the face of contrary experience, that is faith. So too, when someone chooses not to believe it on the basis of their own limited experience.

 

[Peter_Plato]

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

John

Beauty might require a subject to experience it, but to claim it is, therefore, MERELY subjective and has no objective ground is just as much - and more - a matter of “faith” because that requires a needless ‘explaining away’ of beauty and does not even seek to provide an explanation for the very basic and universal experience that every human person has of beauty.

Just as claiming that goodness or morality are merely subjective requires rationalizing away a very basic experience of reality, one which then seeks to replace that experience with a hopelessly insufficient accounting for both goodness and morality.

These kinds of insistence require much more faith in the capacity of human beings to make what are claimed to be reliable but are actually ‘sweeping’ and baseless claims about what is very little known - stabs in the dark followed by discomforting assurances, more like.

It makes any reasonable person wonder why claimants are so insistent that beauty and morality are merely subjective - what do they have to lose if beauty/goodness/truth turn out to be objectively grounded?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

It makes any reasonable person wonder why claimants are so insistent that beauty and morality are merely subjective - what do they have to lose if beauty/goodness/truth turn out to be objectively grounded?

What they have to lose is the curious conviction that nothing is certain … except the conviction that nothing is certain.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

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

It is very interesting that of the five senses we possess, only two are associated with “beauty” - namely the sight and the hearing. People speak of beautiful picture or beautiful music, but never speak of beautiful “smell” (smell is always pleasant or pleasing or disgusting), or beautiful “taste” (something is tasty, or properly seasoned, or maybe overly salty) and never speak of beautiful texture to the touch.

So beauty is just a subset of somehow “pleasing” to the eyes, the ear, the nose, the taste buds of the nerve endings in the skin. There is no “objectively yummy” food, there is no “objectively pleasing smell”, there is no “objectively pleasant sound”, there is no “objectively pretty picture” or “objectively pleasing texture”.

They are all in the eyes, ears, nose, tongue, fingertips of the beholder.

 

[oldcelt]

It is very interesting that of the five senses we possess, only two are associated with “beauty” - namely the sight and the hearing. People speak of beautiful picture or beautiful music, but never speak of beautiful “smell” (smell is always pleasant or pleasing or disgusting), or beautiful “taste” (something is tasty, or properly seasoned, or maybe overly salty) and never speak of beautiful texture to the touch.

So beauty is just a subset of somehow “pleasing” to the eyes, the ear, the nose, the taste buds of the nerve endings in the skin. There is no “objectively yummy” food, there is no “objectively pleasing smell”, there is no “objectively pleasant sound”, there is no “objectively pretty picture” or “objectively pleasing texture”.

They are all in the eyes, ears, nose, tongue, fingertips of the beholder.

You are right on the mark with this post.

John

 

[Aloysium]

You are right on the mark with this post.

John

I guess one has to be Italian to know and appreciate how wonderful food can taste and smell. Really? Claiming there is no gustatory beauty,? Shame!

 

[oldcelt]

I guess one has to be Italian to know and appreciate how wonderful food can taste and smell. Really? Claiming there is no gustatory beauty,? Shame!

Just pointing out that it is not objective, which could be further defined as universal. Some people are going to like those smells and tastes…myself among them…others will not. That is subjectivity, and it applies to art, nature, appearance and so on. I don’t happen to find deserts to be beautiful most of the time…many people swoon for them.

John

 

[Aloysium]

Just pointing out that it is not objective, which could be further defined as universal. Some people are going to like those smells and tastes…myself among them…others will not. That is subjectivity, and it applies to art, nature, appearance and so on. I don’t happen to find deserts to be beautiful most of the time…many people swoon for them.

John

I would assert that there are people who are really into the culinary arts, who have worked very hard at cultivating their tastes. And, there are objectively better wines than others.
Sorry, you aren’t going to convince me here.

By the way, it should be noted that most of science is based on vision, which provides a rather detached way of relating to the world. Visually, reality is out there. It also gives a sense of permanence to objects, especially with the advent of photography. There is an aspect of scientific understanding that involves sound; still here the object is rather disconnected from the observer. Interestingly, those senses that bring us into direct contact with nature are unitized the least in science - taste, touch and smell, to our detriment in knowing reality for what it is.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

I would assert that there are people who are really into the culinary arts, who have worked very hard at cultivating their tastes. And, there are objectively better wines than others.

Yes, there are. And they disagree on individual dishes. That should tell you that there is NO objectively good meal. What is good for the goose is not necessarily good for the gander.

By the way, it should be noted that most of science is based on vision, which provides a rather detached way of relating to the world. Visually, reality is out there. It also gives a sense of permanence to objects, especially with the advent of photography. There is an aspect of scientific understanding that involves sound; still here the object is rather disconnected from the observer. Interestingly, those senses that bring us into direct contact with nature are unitized the least in science - taste, touch and smell, to our detriment in knowing reality for what it is.

No one denies the objective existence of the external world. The question is NOT whether there is an objective “mass”, “weight”, “frequency of vibration” or any other attribute in the objective reality… the question is if that attribute is “pleasant, pleasing” or “repulsive” to individuals.

In Africa people used to live in isolation. When the first explorers made contact with these people, they found the smell of the white people totally disgusting and odious. It just happened that they never encountered the smell of a “soap”, and for their noses it was repulsive. Their children have never tasted “sweet” things… and when they were given a piece of chocolate, they spat its out… it was a horrible taste for them.

Dogs have a much better ability to detect smells than humans - they are real connoisseurs of the olfactory world. And they simply love the stench of a stinking excrement. They throw themselves into it to carry it with themselves. Does that mean that the stench of the excrement is “objectively” superior to the “stench” of roses? After all the “experts” say so…

What about the smell of kim-chi? Or a good, aged Limburger cheese? Some people love them, others simply puke when they encounter these smells.

 

[oldcelt]

I would assert that there are people who are really into the culinary arts, who have worked very hard at cultivating their tastes. And, there are objectively better wines than others.
Sorry, you aren’t going to convince me here.

By the way, it should be noted that most of science is based on vision, which provides a rather detached way of relating to the world. Visually, reality is out there. It also gives a sense of permanence to objects, especially with the advent of photography. There is an aspect of scientific understanding that involves sound; still here the object is rather disconnected from the observer. Interestingly, those senses that bring us into direct contact with nature are unitized the least in science - taste, touch and smell, to our detriment in knowing reality for what it is.

I fail to see what any of that has to to do with objective beauty…in fact, it supports my notion that it is all subjective.

John

 

[Aloysium]

IMHO - The subjective-objective dichotomy adds more confusion than it does help understand the nature of human existence.
It is always about relationship. The subject and object have to meet. We cannot know anything without interacting with it.
Beauty, as a form of knowledge, like morality, is rooted in reality.
Whether something is beautiful is not projected onto it by the subject, it is revealed by the object.
This seems obvious, a given, so there is no way to argue it with someone who doesn’t see it.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

IMHO - The subjective-objective dichotomy adds more confusion than it does help understand the nature of human existence.
It is always about relationship. The subject and object have to meet. We cannot know anything without interacting with it.
Beauty, as a form of knowledge, like morality, is rooted in reality.
Whether something is beautiful is not projected onto it by the subject, it is revealed by the object.
This seems obvious, a given, so there is no way to argue it with someone who doesn’t see it.

The smell of kim-chi? Or the smell of the flower of a pear tree? And the taste of a Limburger cheese? Or a Chinese delicacy called 100 day egg? What do they “reveal”?

 

[Peter_Plato]

No one denies the objective existence of the external world. The question is NOT whether there is an objective “mass”, “weight”, “frequency of vibration” or any other attribute in the objective reality… the question is if that attribute is “pleasant, pleasing” or “repulsive” to individuals.

Actually, what you call “objective” or quantifiable is ALWAYS relative to human subjects or observers.

Take lengths, whether in metres, inches or light years. These always reduce to some relative comparison which relates directly to how human SUBJECTS perceive objects around them, in much the same way that visible, auditory or gustatory experiences are received by human subjects.

We accept that the universe is 13.7 billion light years across. How “big” is that in absolute terms? We don’t know. That distance is only relative to our experience of the time it takes for the earth to travel around the sun. How much time is that in absolute terms? We don’t know and can’t say.

For all we know the entire universe could be a minuscule dust-sized particle or subatomic particle floating in an expansive region of nothingness much as atoms are separated from each other by huge distances relative to the size of their actual mass-aspects.

We cannot with any degree of certainty “know” that there aren’t beings somewhere far above and beyond the parameters of our “known” universe who are experiencing a universe of their own where our universe is merely one of an imperceptible and countless number of subatomic “particles” in that universe.

At base, every “objective” claim we make with alleged certainty about the “actual” world around us is just as subject-dependent as claims we make about taste, smell or beauty.

Time to get off your high horse and stop the pretense with regard to human certainty or objectivity. It isn’t the way you claim it is and your continued insistence that huge and relevant distinctions are to be had between “subjective” and “objective” claims is bogus, at best.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I fail to see what any of that has to to do with objective beauty…in fact, it supports my notion that it is all subjective.

John

There are two ways of looking at subjectivity.

There is the subjective dream and the subjective reality.

Sometimes we imagine things that do not exist. This is the subjective dream.

When we avoid falling off a clip, we are subjects who apprehend a threatening reality.

There is the artist who creates a thing of beauty and fools himself that it is beautiful.

There is the artist who creates a thing of beauty that all the world recognizes as beautiful.

So the latter artist has objectively created beauty, the former is subjectively self deluded.

In what sense are both artists and all other artists subject to your notion “that it is all subjective”?

 

[oldcelt]

There are two ways of looking at subjectivity.

There is the subjective dream and the subjective reality.

Sometimes we imagine things that do not exist. This is the subjective dream.

When we avoid falling off a clip, we are subjects who apprehend a threatening reality.

There is the artist who creates a thing of beauty and fools himself that it is beautiful.

There is the artist who creates a thing of beauty that all the world recognizes as beautiful.

So the latter artist has objectively created beauty, the former is subjectively self deluded.

In what sense are both artists and all other artists subject to your notion “that it is all subjective”?

Because each has made a value judgement based on their own notion of beauty…subjectivity. No artist of which I am aware has ever created something that is recognized as universally beautiful. All beauty is subjective.

John

 

[Pallas_Athene]

There is the artist who creates a thing of beauty that all the world recognizes as beautiful.

So the latter artist has objectively created beauty, the former is subjectively self deluded.

Back to the “numbers game”, eh?

That reminds me of an old poster (a picture, not a person!) which depicted a table with crystals, silverware, china plates… and on the plate there was a pile of excrement. The caption was: “One billion flies can’t all be wrong! Why don’t you taste it, too?”

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Back to the “numbers game”, eh?

That reminds me of an old poster (a picture, not a person!) which depicted a table with crystals, silverware, china plates… and on the plate there was a pile of excrement. The caption was: “One billion flies can’t all be wrong! Why don’t you taste it, too?”

If a thing is objectively beautiful, and everyone recognizes its beauty, who are you to say that everyone is wrong just because two or three people don’t see the beauty?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Because each has made a value judgement based on their own notion of beauty…subjectivity. No artist of which I am aware has ever created something that is recognized as universally beautiful. All beauty is subjective.

John

It is the very essence of artistic judgment that some things are considered beautiful and other things are not.

The child who scrawls with his crayons proudly shows his scrawling to mom and dad.

Michelangelo proudly adorns the Sistine Chapel for all the world to see.

Are you saying that because the child cannot understand Michelangelo his scrawling must be as good as Michelangelo’s?

You understand, of course, that for you to argue in that vein means that the truths of this world are also freighted with the same kind of relativism. And that the moral and immoral actions of this world are freighted with the same kind of relativism. The notion that the earth revolves around the sun is as true as the sun revolving about the earth. Mother Teresa attending to the poor and sick of Calcutta is no more morally righteous than Hitler’s view that it was righteous to kill six million Jews.

One would think that at some point you must begin to share Bertrand Russell’s concern that triumphant evil was not wrong just because he personally didn’t like it.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

It is the very essence of artistic judgment that some things are considered beautiful and other things are not.

I highlighted the relevant part: “CONSIDERED”.

If a thing is objectively beautiful, and everyone recognizes its beauty, who are you to say that everyone is wrong just because two or three people don’t see the beauty?

The point is that this thing is NOT objectively beautiful. It is considered to be beautiful by many people. And I am not saying that those people are wrong. In their eyes that thing is beautiful. The most malformed child is “beautiful” in the eyes of the mother.

Did you follow the lead of those billion flies? They cannot be all wrong. Not just the majority of the flies, ALL of them. So that pile of excrement MUST be yummy - according to your “numbers game” type of reasoning.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Did you follow the lead of those billion flies? They cannot be all wrong. Not just the majority of the flies, ALL of them. So that pile of excrement MUST be yummy - according to your “numbers game” type of reasoning.

Talk about irrelevant comparisons!

We are not flies. We are philosophers. We c an imagine the objectively beautiful and create it.

The fly can only be drawn to the excrement. And for the fly it is objectively tasty.

Have you ever know a fly to refuse?