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

[Peter_Plato]

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?

Merely because some item possesses a quality or trait **relative to **or **contingent upon **some other object or reality does not make the quality “relative” in the sense of non-objective or subjective.

This is a problem you have with equivocation.

Even where the quality of an object is in some respects relative to a subject or person, that does not make the quality purely subjective unless the nature of the quality, itself, depends entirely upon the subject and none on the object itself. Again, another error of presumption on your part.

You may want to take some time reading this…

maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2009/08/truth-is-absolute-part-one.html

To sum up. The aletheic relativist either asserts his thesis (R) as absolutely true or as relatively true. If the former, his thesis is self-refuting. If the latter, then his thesis avoids self-contradiction only to face a dilemma: either relative-truth is the same as the property of being-believed, or it is not. If the former, then the relativity of truth boils down to an uninteresting triviality. If the latter, then it remains wholly unclear what could be meant by the property of relative-truth, and the thesis (R) perishes of semantic indeterminacy.

By the way, the above demonstrates that you are also mistaken in your view of acceptance/belief in the “I am baffled…” thread, primarily because your concept of truth boils down to the property of being-believed and suffers from the aletheic relativist issue noted above.

 

[Peter_Plato]

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

“Subjective” means that the quality assigned to an entity is entirely dependent upon the subject doing the assigning and NOTHING of the determination depends upon the objective nature of the object itself.

Where an object has some discernible quality that exists independently of any or all subjects, then the quality is objective – it depends upon the object, not a subject.

WARNING: It is very easy to engage in circular reasoning in the matter of determining whence and how qualities are “assigned” by subjects. Tread carefully!

 

[Bradski]

Your assumption is that the aspect of beauty is one dimensional.

Getting a little more confusing, I’d say. We had: ‘Beauty is objective’. Now we have: ‘Different aspects of beauty are objective’.

Now we can’t even line up everything as being more or less beautiful. We have to decide what aspects the item has in relation to its potential beauty and then discern which of those are more or less beautiful relative to each other and then decide if they are comparable to other aspects of other items and then discern the relative hierarchy again (apologies for having to use the word ‘relative’ all the time).

I’m not sure how we do this with things that have nothing in common. As I said earlier, if there is objective beauty it makes no sense to say that everything is equally beautiful. It has to be (excuse me again) relative. So how do we objectively declare that a flower is more beautiful than a tune? Well, I can give you a clue: We can’t.

To use one of PR’s favourite examples, if I like turnip and I think it tastes better than parsnip, then I don’t think you would be idiotic enough to tell me I was wrong. If I said that turnips are more beautiful than parsnips, then the same applies. But OK, you actually want to claim that beauty is not necessarily subjective just because yadda yadda yadda:

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.

Now there is a huge difference between these two statements:

Beauty is objective.
Beauty is not necessarily subjective.

You have argued the first on previous occasions. Have you decided to back off that and now go with the second?

 

[Peter_Plato]

By the way, do you like Retsina? Balut?

Taste in the sense of “like” or not is entirely dependent upon the preference of the subject, not the object.

The question(s) are irrelevant to whether beauty is entirely in the eye of the beholder or an objective quality of the object.

A straight answer is “Don’t know. Never had 'em.” That answer cannot be contended. Nor could, “I like them a great deal!” Notice, no one would argue with my tastes in the matter.

Notice there is a world of difference between claiming the “Mona Lisa is a beautiful piece of art,” (open to dispute because it is an objective claim about the Mona Lisa) and “I like the Mona Lisa,” (a totally subjective claim that is not open to dispute.)

 

[Peter_Plato]

Now there is a huge difference between these two statements:

Beauty is objective.
Beauty is not necessarily subjective.

You have argued the first on previous occasions. Have you decided to back off that and now go with the second?

Nope, just saying many people think that beauty must be subjective BECAUSE claims about beauty are made by subjects.

That is just misplaced attribution, however.

Just because claims about beauty are made by a subject does not mean the subject is making an undisputable claim about him/herself – like: “I like parsnips.” No, subjects can make objective and disputable determinations about objects – “That painting is beautiful.” They may, in fact, not be able to tell you why the object has that quality, exactly, but it is still a claim about the object and, hence, an objective claim, not a subjective one.

 

[Bradski]

“That painting is beautiful.” They may, in fact, not be able to tell you why the object has that quality, exactly, but it is still a claim about the object and, hence, an objective claim, not a subjective one.

You’re sliding, Peter. Slip sliding. We’ve gone from ‘Beauty is objective’, through ‘Beauty is not necessarily subjective’ and have now arrived at ‘Claims about beauty are not subjective’.

I wish you’d make a stance and keep to it. So to make it easy: ‘Things have an objective beauty’. That is, they are beautiful whether anyone thinks them to be so or not.

You’ve claimed this before so do you now agree with that statement or not? Let’s clear all this smoke…

 

[inocente]

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?

Only problem being that Jesus never says that . There are maybe two problems here. One is relying on an English translation (and the only one I can find which mentions beauty is the NLT). Other translations follow the original Greek, which never mentions beauty, see the interlinear.

The other is taking a verse out of context, known in the trade as verse mining. Some people force scripture to say anything they want (a good verse miner can turn God into either a left-wing politician or a right-wing politician just by quoting appropriate verses out of context).

Anyway, something to watch out for. The context here is that Jesus is not giving an art lesson on aesthetics, he’s teaching his disciples about not worrying: *"Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat; or about your body, what you will wear. For life is more than food, and the body more than clothes. Consider the ravens: They do not sow or reap, they have no storeroom or barn; yet God feeds them. And how much more valuable you are than birds! Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to your life? Since you cannot do this very little thing, why do you worry about the rest?

“Consider how the wild flowers grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you, not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today, and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, how much more will he clothe you—you of little faith! And do not set your heart on what you will eat or drink; do not worry about it. For the pagan world runs after all such things, and your Father knows that you need them. But seek his kingdom, and these things will be given to you as well."
*

 

[ynotzap]

“Subjective” means that the quality assigned to an entity is entirely dependent upon the subject doing the assigning and NOTHING of the determination depends upon the objective nature of the object itself.

Where an object has some discernible quality that exists independently of any or all subjects, then the quality is objective – it depends upon the object, not a subject.

WARNING: It is very easy to engage in circular reasoning in the matter of determining whence and how qualities are “assigned” by subjects. Tread carefully!

 

[Peter_Plato]

You’re sliding, Peter. Slip sliding. We’ve gone from ‘Beauty is objective’, through ‘Beauty is not necessarily subjective’ and have now arrived at ‘Claims about beauty are not subjective’.

I wish you’d make a stance and keep to it. So to make it easy: ‘Things have an objective beauty’. That is, they are beautiful whether anyone thinks them to be so or not.

You’ve claimed this before so do you now agree with that statement or not? Let’s clear all this smoke…

Let’s first be clear that making a statement to the effect that “X is true,” does not imply the further assumption that “ONLY X is true.” If I say, “The Earth orbits the Sun,” you ought NOT take it to mean that “ONLY the Earth orbits the Sun.”

The smoke, as they say, is back in your court.

Let’s take the three propositions that you have presumed to distill from my posts and address them one by one, shall we?

1) Beauty is objective.

Take this to mean that there exists a quality called beauty which is an aspect of objects in the real world. Now that quality is “objective” because it exists whether or not its existence is acknowledged by potential subjects of the experience of beauty or not.

Ergo, the quality of beauty is an objective quality, legitimate expressions of which say something meaningful ABOUT those objects. The reason that only some purported beauty statements are objective – I hereby grant that not all purported beauty statements claim to be making objective statements about the objects in question – is because the subjects making legitimate beauty claims are making statements about the objective quality of the objects being described, NOT ABOUT themselves as the subjects making the ‘beauty’ statements.

The statement ‘Beauty is objective,’ ought not be taken as the claim that what everyone means by ‘beauty’ should be understood as making objective claims about the beauty of things. No, some people simply confuse what ‘beauty’ means with ‘expressing a subjective preference.’ Well, they are using the word improperly.

Therefore…

2) Beauty is not necessarily subjective.

This statement ought to be taken as a restatement of the confusion some people have with the objective meaning of the word ‘beauty’ and their misconception that statements of beauty express merely a subjective preference. This ain’t necessarily so, thus ‘Beauty is not necessarily subjective,’ since not everyone takes ‘beauty’ to mean ‘statements of subjective preference,’ although some, speaking improperly, might.

3) Claims about beauty are not subjective.

Perhaps this would be better stated as: “Legitimate claims about beauty are not subjective.”
Anyone assuming that their ‘beauty’ claims are merely subjective is not, thereby, making a legitimate claim about the quality of beauty in the object being described. What they are doing by stating emphatically “X is beautiful!” is merely to be understood or taken as making a preference claim similar to “I like that object.”

What is happening, in this case, is that the subject making the statement has misappropriated what appears to be an objective statement, stripped it of its true meaning and has turned it into what amounts to a preference statement allowing people like you to then falsely conclude that all statements of beauty are ONLY really preference statements.

Hence, my claim that 3) is true about legitimate claims about beauty while not denying that some beauty statements may [wrongly] be intended to express mere subjective preference by those making them. THAT, however, does not permit you to assume that because some beauty statements are intended by their issuers to be mere subjective expressions that, therefore, ALL beauty statements are ONLY of that type.

Which takes us back to my first point:

Let’s first be clear that making a statement to the effect that “X is true,” does not imply the further assumption that “Only X is true.”

You seem to have a penchant for making such a move in your responses. Be clear that the move is NOT a legitimate one.

Again, the cloud is hovering over your court.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Of all the useless branches of philosophy, the aesthetics is the least useful. Without presenting an objective epistemology of how to measure the “beauty”, or the “taste” or the “pleasantness” of an object it is futile to speak of objective beauty.

It is trivial to say that there are certain objective attributes of the object and the perceptive ability of the observer which will allow the observe to declare: “I find this object to be pleasant, pleasing or beautiful”. Or as a shortened form: "This whatchamacallit is beautiful (pleasing to the eye, or pleasant to the ear, or smells wonderful, or tastes great, or good to touch). But since different observers find different sights, sounds, smells, tastes or textures to be pleasing, there is no objective “beauty” to speak of.

The final conclusion is: De gustibus non est disputandum.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

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?

In all my life I’ve never known an evil woman who was beautiful.

A woman’s evil spirit is usually transparent except for those who are easily fooled.

An evil spirit cancels out a beautiful body, except for those who are easily fooled.

Likewise, it matters very much that you have developed taste buds if you’re going to attend a first rate chef’s banquet.

Food, like women, can be judged as beautiful or ugly.

Those who eat garbage will have low esteem of a chef’s masterpiece.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Of all the useless branches of philosophy, the aesthetics is the least useful. Without presenting an objective epistemology of how to measure the “beauty”, or the “taste” or the “pleasantness” of an object it is futile to speak of objective beauty.

It is trivial to say that there are certain objective attributes of the object and the perceptive ability of the observer which will allow the observe to declare: “I find this object to be pleasant, pleasing or beautiful”. Or as a shortened form: "This whatchamacallit is beautiful (pleasing to the eye, or pleasant to the ear, or smells wonderful, or tastes great, or good to touch). But since different observers find different sights, sounds, smells, tastes or textures to be pleasing, there is no objective “beauty” to speak of.

The final conclusion is: De gustibus non est disputandum.

Where, oh where, have we heard this before?

Hmmm…Let me see… Oh, yes…

No, it would be too salty for me. But a goat would happily lick the salt off it, and then the dog would also happily wolf the steak down. Different tastes, you know. Or “each 'is own”… or “de gustibus non est disputandum”, or “what is good for the goose is not necessarily good for the gander”…

But you are welcome to construct a “salt-o-meter”, which will separate the “too salty” and the “just right” from the “not salty enough” - for everyone! Because that would be “objectively salty”. In the absence of such a machine - we all (except maybe you two) will subscribe to the idea that “saltiness” is subjective.

The question might be asked, “By which branch of epistemology is the quality of “usefulness” determined?” Without presenting an objective epistemology of how to measure the “usefulness”, or the “quality” of the “usefulness” of an object or concept it is futile to speak of objective usefulness.

To quote the old rascal, as opposed to his reincarnation:

But you are welcome to construct a “useful-o-meter”, which will separate the “very useful” and the “barely useful” from the “entirely useless” - for everyone! Because that would be “objectively useful”. In the absence of such a machine - we all (except maybe you two, Hee_Zen and Pallas Athene) will subscribe to the idea that “usefulness” is subjective.

Therefore, to say that aesthetics is an entirely useless branch of epistemology is, itself, to make an entirely useless claim. Hello?

Consider your purported refutation of aesthetics to have been self-refuted.

 

[Lucretius]

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

How do you personally know if the what the senses themselves gives you is objective or not?

Anyway, we know that spiders are objectively more beautiful than their webs (yes, its true) because spiders are of a higher order of being: spiders have an animate form, while webs don’t. Living things are of a higher quality than non-living things, as they participate more in Being: the spider has both the being of chemicals and the being of living things, while a web only has the being of chemicals.

Does that make sense?

Christ pax,

Lucretius

 

[Charlemagne_III]

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

And what about that axe?

The gazelle is beautiful. The lion is beautiful. What they do with each other is to keep the chain of life alive. That too is beautiful.

 

[Bradski]

‘Things have an objective beauty’. That is, they are beautiful whether anyone thinks them to be so or not.

You’ve claimed this before so do you now agree with that statement or not?

1) Beauty is objective.

Take this to mean that there exists a quality called beauty which is an aspect of objects in the real world. Now that quality is “objective” because it exists whether or not its existence is acknowledged by potential subjects of the experience of beauty or not.

A simple ‘Yes’ would have sufficed.

So we’re back to all the problems I associated with such a claim previously. Maybe let’s try to take this a little slower…

Objects have an objective quality which we call beauty. I can’t imagine that you’d suggest that everything is either equally beautiful (or equally ugly), so there must exist an objective hierarchy of beauty. From things that are a little bit beautiful to things that are very beautiful. This song is more beautiful than that one. If you want to suggest that it is different aspects of objects that have this objective beauty, then the same applies. This lyric is more beautiful than that lyric.

So do you agree that there must be this hierarchy?

The gazelle is beautiful. The lion is beautiful. What they do with each other is to keep the chain of life alive. That too is beautiful.

You are describing the process of one animal eating another alive as being beautiful. Fair enough…

Does that make sense?

None.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

You are describing the process of one animal eating another alive as being beautiful. Fair enough…

I said the lion is beautiful and the gazelle is beautiful. When you look at them, do you not see their beauty? What they do with each other is apart from their intrinsic beauty as creatures of God.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Objects have an objective quality which we call beauty. I can’t imagine that you’d suggest that everything is either equally beautiful (or equally ugly), so there must exist an objective hierarchy of beauty. From things that are a little bit beautiful to things that are very beautiful. This song is more beautiful than that one. If you want to suggest that it is different aspects of objects that have this objective beauty, then the same applies. This lyric is more beautiful than that lyric.

This issue you raise is certainly relevant. It’s inherent in all value judgments that some achievements are greater than others, which is demonstrated by Nobel Prizes, Oscars, academic grades, etc. These kinds of judgments are taken for granted as valid. Not that everyone will agree, but that again is a matter of subjective differences which can be explained at least in part by prejudice, politics, or unworthy critics of excellence.

 

[Bradski]

What they do with each other is apart from their intrinsic beauty as creatures of God.

What you wrote was this:

What they do with each other is to keep the chain of life alive. That too is beautiful.

‘That too’ references ‘what they do with each other. Which you describe as beautiful. You said, quite plainly that what they do with each other is beautiful. You also said that in nature:

Everything is beautiful.

Not many people would have the stomach to watch what happens in nature. It is about as ugly as it gets.

And what about that axe?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

What you wrote was this:

‘That too’ references ‘what they do with each other. Which you describe as beautiful. You said, quite plainly that what they do with each other is beautiful. You also said that in nature:

Not many people would have the stomach to watch what happens in nature. It is about as ugly as it gets.

And what about that axe?

Did I miss something? Why do you keep referring to an axe?

So let me get this right. You do not agree that lions and gazelles are beautiful. You think the lion’s eating habits are ugly. I’m sure Christ on the cross, if you saw him, would also be ugly. But Christians find this figure of Christ on the cross the most beautiful and sublime image in the world. Not because Christ is in pain. But because he does the will of the Father by showing us how deeply we are loved and how he wants to be joined with us in life, death, and resurrection.

To answer your question about the gazelle who dies to feed the lion; if you can’t stomach it, look away. But it is God’s will that the lion should feast on the gazelle, and God’s will will be done in this beautiful world he has created.

Remember that next time you eat a sirloin steak.

 

[Bradski]

Did I miss something? Why do you keep referring to an axe?

Don’t you read posts by atheists? Is there a mental block that prevents you comprehending what I post? Yes, you missed something. You miss quite a lot – or choose deliberately to ignore it. Read back – it’s not like there are dozens of posts. I must have made, what…2 or 3 directed to you?

To answer your question about the gazelle who dies to feed the lion; if you can’t stomach it, look away. But it is God’s will that the lion should feast on the gazelle, and God’s will will be done in this beautiful world he has created.

To answer what question? I didn’t ask a question. Whose posts are you reading? What question are you answering?

I made a point. I made a few actually. Which were obviously ignored. There was no need to answer anything at all. You have made your points and they have been found to be lacking. I’ve pointed that out. Try reading what I actually write and if you feel the need to respond, then address what has been written rather than answering non-existent questions.

I look forward to an answer that has some bearing on what has been said and is relevant to the discussion. I am an optimist at heart.