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

[Peter_Plato]

:ehh: Wot? ¿Que?

How could you answer, “Do pink elephants exist?” without knowing what is meant by the phrase “pink elephants?” You couldn’t.

Neither could you argue the point of whether they actually exist or not without acknowledging that “pink elephants” could or could not have an objectively real referent.

Both those who think pink elephants exist and those who don’t must tacitly agree that the phrase “pink elephant” refers to something other than a subjective notion. The objective (independent of both subjects) thought potentially refers to an actual and (possibly) existing object.

The referent of the idea HAS the potential to exist objectively and independently (even as only a thought) of both subjects’ beliefs about it.

To argue over its existence, both interlocutors must presume the idea is not merely a subjective notion, but could potentially exist objectively AND does actually exist as a thought object.

Similarly, to argue over whether a painting is beautiful or not, the two sides must presume the idea of beauty is independent of their subjective preferences and that objects that exist independently of each of them do or do not “express” the objectively accessible idea of beauty.

Beauty, to be at all assessible, MUST refer to objective referents, otherwise the notion is inarguable and anyone who disputes whether something is genuinely beautiful while simultaneously holding that the notion of beauty is merely subjective is simply being obtuse.

I am not sure why this point is even contentious.

If you want to claim beauty expresses merely a subjective preference, fine. But, at least, be consistent and go eat your ice cream. No one is questioning whether or not you like a particular painting (or your ice cream,) the question is whether it is genuinely, objectively beautiful AND if the only contribution you can muster on that question is tantamount to, “Well, I like it,” then it is duly noted as adding no value to the discussion of the question, since it is amounts to an admission that someone (namely you) is incapable of rising above their own sensory responses.

A dog getting up and walking away would appropriately express your position. Dogs are incapable of reasonable discourse so their contribution to the discussion would correspond nicely to your position on the subjectivity of beauty.

I would gladly take you for a walk, but prefer not to discuss the works of Monet, Shakespeare or Mozart with you. There would be no point.

Woof.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Even for you, the arguments in that post were extraordinarily convoluted. Again, the definitions are not mine, they are in all the online dictionaries and used by everyone except for you.

I have to leave, but just to use those standard definitions in what you say above. The morality of “harvesting the body parts of unborn human beings” ought not be determined subjectively (based on personal feelings, tastes and opinions), since that would amount to it-feels-good-so-it-must-be-good. Instead the morality obviously ought to be determined objectively (not influenced by personal feelings, tastes or opinions).

Oh, okay…

Determine away, then… objectively, in a manner not influenced by personal feelings, tastes or opinions…

I await your objective appraisal of the act of harvesting body parts. Your determination would be what, then, and based upon what? (Remember NO influence from your personal feelings, tastes or opinions.)

I can’t wait to see which rabbit you will chase down which hole. Woof.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Which, using the standard definitions, is so obvious that it hardly needs to be stated. There’s no need for tortured arguments.

O.K. let’s cut to the chase.

Is it objectively true that there is no objective beauty?

If so, why is there objective truth but not objective beauty?

And how do you objectively prove there is no objective beauty?

If it is only subjectively true there is no objective beauty, you can prove nothing.



lst.edu/academics/landas-archives/373-dictatorship-of-relativism

 

[Pallas_Athene]

The denial of the existence of something… the existence of something means that it’s existence has been validated, confirmed, verified!

What an incredible assertion!?! I deny the existence of “Snow White and the seven dwarfs” - does that mean that the existence of “Snow White and the seven dwarfs” has been VERIFIED??? Where and when and by whom was the “existence” of these imaginary entities “verified”?

By denying its real existence is giving credence to it’s existence, because if it didn’t exist in the first place, why would you deny it’s existence, that is not logical, and is self-contradictory, self-refuting.

Obviously you confuse “ontological existence” with “conceptual existence”. I suggest that you read up on it. Because you keep mixing them up. And not just “you”.

Beauty is a concept, and as such the “concept of beauty” exists. Beautiful is an adjective, not a noun. When someone says: “X is beautiful”, this proposition simply affirms that X creates a pleasant feeling in the person. What one person finds beautiful, another one might find ugly - they both express their subjective assessment about the object.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Is it objectively true that there is no objective beauty?

If so, why is there objective truth but not objective beauty?

“Truth” and “beauty” are concepts. They do NOT exist as ontological objects. They do exist as concepts. By the way it is a bad idea to mix up “ethics” and “aesthetics”. By confusing them you only prove that you have no idea what you are taking about.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Beauty is a concept, and as such the “concept of beauty” exists. Beautiful is an adjective, not a noun. When someone says: “X is beautiful”, this proposition simply affirms that X creates a pleasant feeling in the person. What one person finds beautiful, another one might find ugly - they both express their subjective assessment about the object.

Well, no, actually.

When someone says “X is beautiful,” they are not MERELY claiming that “X gives me a pleasant feeling.”

In fact, that couldn’t be true because when someone else claims “X is not beautiful,” if they were merely saying “X does not give me a pleasant feeling,” the discussion would end. Right. There.

The fact that the claim is ABOUT X and not about “my feelings,” means that the claim is intended to be an objective one (about the object) and not one about personal feelings.

Again, if it were merely about personal feelings there could be no discussion about the beauty of X. Any such discussion would be a non-starter since it would only be about personal feelings which are not and cannot be in dispute.

When someone makes the objective claim that “The Mona Lisa is a beautiful painting,” they are making a statement about an object – the painting – and comparing it to other paintings relative to a difficult-to-define quality called “beauty.”

Now merely because that quality is not one easily explained, assessed or depicted does not, in itself, mean the quality is not essentially objective (about the object.)

What you are doing is attempting to force the argument in your direction by a bald assertion: namely, that what EVERYONE means by “X is beautiful,” is nothing more than, “X gives me a pleasant feeling.”

That is certainly not how everyone views it, (and likely NOT how most do,) even though you suppose the argument can be settled by stipulation rather than by full frontal argumentation.

Which is not surprising given that you suppose your personal feelings, subjective as they are, settle everything as far as you are concerned, except…well… for what your personal feelings permit are not. (Refer here to inocente’s definition of ‘objective’ as that not infuenced by personal feelings, emotions, opinions, etc.,) Which, in the end, means your personal feelings DO settle everything, either by stipulation or by permission.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

“Truth” and “beauty” are concepts. They do NOT exist as ontological objects. They do exist as concepts. By the way it is a bad idea to mix up “ethics” and “aesthetics”. By confusing them you only prove that you have no idea what you are taking about.

If the beautiful does not exist as an ontological object, what is Beethoven’s 9th? A chimera?

If truth does not exist as a metaphysical object, what is it? A chimera?

No, it’s quite appropriate to mix ethics with aesthetics, for the simple reason that both refer to truth claims. By citing them together we can double the effect of conviction that it’s really rather ignorant to think there these truth claims exist only in the head or in the heart.

 

[Peter_Plato]

By the way it is a bad idea to mix up “ethics” and “aesthetics”. By confusing them you only prove that you have no idea what you are taking about.

Only if you suppose ethical things cannot be beautiful or beautiful things cannot be ethical.

So you don’t think truth is beautiful? Or that beauty does not carry truth?
Or that goodness is beautiful and evil ugly?
Or that beauty is good and good beautiful?

There is a difference between “confusing” them and relating them, no?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

If the beautiful does not exist as an ontological object, what is Beethoven’s 9th? A chimera?

That sentence is a grammatical nightmare. What the heck is “the beautiful”? Beautiful is an adjective, not a noun. Beethoven’s 9th is a sequence of certain vibrations of air, which is found “beautiful” by many people, depending upon their exposure to certain types of music.

If truth does not exist as a metaphysical object, what is it? A chimera?

Truth is a concept. Have you ever held “truth” in your hand? Certain propositions can have a truth-value associated with them, others cannot. (Though, come to think of it, there is a cutesy pun, which says: “Quid est veritas?” “Est vir qui adest”… But, of course the word “quid” also means a “pound”… Not the weight, but the currency.)

No, it’s quite appropriate to mix ethics with aesthetics, for the simple reason that both refer to truth claims.

Want to add mathematics to the bunch? Or chemistry? Or food tasting? Or the smell of an actual object? (Rose vs. organic fertilizer? Hint: Dogs find the latter one much more pleasing…)

By citing them together we can double the effect of conviction that it’s really rather ignorant to think there these truth claims exist only in the head or in the heart.

I don’t know about your “heart”, but mine is simply an organ which pumps blood.

 

[ynotzap]

What an incredible assertion!?! I deny the existence of “Snow White and the seven dwarfs” - does that mean that the existence of “Snow White and the seven dwarfs” has been VERIFIED??? Where and when and by whom was the “existence” of these imaginary entities “verified”?

Walt Disney and millions of others would disagree with you It exists as a fictitious story made into a movie. And even a fictitious story would not exist if there wasn’t a non-fictitious reality. The existence of the story has been verified. Were have you been!?
Pallas Athene:

Obviously you confuse “ontological existence” with “conceptual existence”. I suggest that you read up on it. Because you keep mixing them up. And not just “you”.

Aren’t we speaking of ontological existence when we question whether beauty is objective or subjective? Ontology deals with the ultimate’s of reality, is existence not a subject of ontology, the science of being, what is and what isn’t? How do you determine what is conceptual, and ontological. What is conceptual or conceptual existence ,is it subjective or objective? As I understand conceptual existence, is what exists in the mind, and what exists in the mind can be, or not be existent depending on it’s relationship to objective reality, things that exist apart from what one thinks. And how do you determine that without understanding ontology which deals with existence, and it’s determination.? To you I am mixing it up, because that’s the way you understand it, are you being objective? The Metaphysical science of being(ontology) deals with all being, finite being, and infinite being, and that involves conceptual being, and it’s definition. It nice to know it isn’t just me.

Beauty is a concept, and as such the “concept of beauty” exists. Beautiful is an adjective, not a noun. When someone says: “X is beautiful”, this proposition simply affirms that X creates a pleasant feeling in the person. What one person finds beautiful, another one might find ugly - they both express their subjective assessment about the object.

Beauty is a concept, what isn’t if you can think of it? Beauty as an adjective, modifies a noun, and a noun is the name of a place,person or thing. You say a person is beautiful, what is beautiful? What is your objective standard to compare it with to determine the person is beautiful, is it just your opinion, your taste, or your feeling? If it is, your determination is just subjective, with no objective reality, so beauty becomes what ever you want it to become, and it’s existence has only a subjective reality, not objective, and you have no standard. Beauty is a quality, and a quality is something that exists, and if it exists then it has objective reality, it doesn’t depend on what one thinks, but is existent apart from what one thinks, it is objective.`

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Walt Disney and millions of others would disagree with you It exists as a fictitious story made into a movie. And even a fictitious story would not exist if there wasn’t a non-fictitious reality. The existence of the story has been verified. Were have you been!?

I have been in “realityland”, where the fictitious characters only exist as ideas, but not in reality. Nothing else needs to be said.

 

[Bahman]

Oh, okay.

So information is neither meaningful, significant nor true, either.

It is very simple to understand since at [sic] is stated any kind of information can be converted to a series of 0s and 1s which are neither true, meaningful nor significant since 0s and 1s (in themselves) are not true, meaningful or significant.

By the way, is your claim that “Information is neither beautiful nor ugly,” convertible to a series of 0s and 1s? If not, then it can’t be “information,” correct?

Yup.

Which means your claim adds no information (AKA nothing) to the discussion.

Wut?

 

[inocente]

How could you answer, “Do pink elephants exist?” without knowing what is meant by the phrase “pink elephants?” You couldn’t.

Neither could you argue the point of whether they actually exist or not without acknowledging that “pink elephants” could or could not have an objectively real referent.

Both those who think pink elephants exist and those who don’t must tacitly agree that the phrase “pink elephant” refers to something other than a subjective notion. The objective (independent of both subjects) thought potentially refers to an actual and (possibly) existing object.

The referent of the idea HAS the potential to exist objectively and independently (even as only a thought) of both subjects’ beliefs about it.

To argue over its existence, both interlocutors must presume the idea is not merely a subjective notion, but could potentially exist objectively AND does actually exist as a thought object.

Similarly, to argue over whether a painting is beautiful or not, the two sides must presume the idea of beauty is independent of their subjective preferences and that objects that exist independently of each of them do or do not “express” the objectively accessible idea of beauty.

Beauty, to be at all assessible, MUST refer to objective referents, otherwise the notion is inarguable and anyone who disputes whether something is genuinely beautiful while simultaneously holding that the notion of beauty is merely subjective is simply being obtuse.

I am not sure why this point is even contentious.

If you want to claim beauty expresses merely a subjective preference, fine. But, at least, be consistent and go eat your ice cream. No one is questioning whether or not you like a particular painting (or your ice cream,) the question is whether it is genuinely, objectively beautiful AND if the only contribution you can muster on that question is tantamount to, “Well, I like it,” then it is duly noted as adding no value to the discussion of the question, since it is amounts to an admission that someone (namely you) is incapable of rising above their own sensory responses.

A dog getting up and walking away would appropriately express your position. Dogs are incapable of reasonable discourse so their contribution to the discussion would correspond nicely to your position on the subjectivity of beauty.

I would gladly take you for a walk, but prefer not to discuss the works of Monet, Shakespeare or Mozart with you. There would be no point.

Woof.

“Reification (also known as concretism, hypostatization, or the fallacy of misplaced concreteness) is a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event, or physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating something which is not concrete, such as an idea, as a concrete thing.” - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_%28fallacy%29

 

[inocente]

Oh, okay…

Determine away, then… objectively, in a manner not influenced by personal feelings, tastes or opinions…

I await your objective appraisal of the act of harvesting body parts. Your determination would be what, then, and based upon what? (Remember NO influence from your personal feelings, tastes or opinions.)

I can’t wait to see which rabbit you will chase down which hole. Woof.

Let’s suppose we’ve discovered that an evil scientist has genetically engineered the unborn baby such that she will die at birth, but if harvested in the next few days, her blood contains something which can cure 200 people of some nasty, otherwise terminal, disease.

Should her blood be harvested?

There are two main ways to be objective about this moral question. One is to weigh up the consequences, and you may remember this was your preference in a different moral question on another thread. So, the consequentialist says, the baby will die anyway, we’re too late to do anything about that, so let’s abort her and use her blood to save the 200. That’s an objective argument (not influenced by personal feelings, tastes or opinions).

The other main way to be objective is to weigh up the action itself. Some actions are so categorically wrong they can never be permitted, and this was my preference on that other dilemma. It would be in this case too. No matter what the circumstances, no matter what the consequences, the action of killing someone to use her as a means to an end is always wrong, since by destroying the dignity of her person, it destroys the dignity of all persons. That’s also an objective argument (not influenced by personal feelings, tastes or opinions).

 

[inocente]

O.K. let’s cut to the chase.

Is it objectively true that there is no objective beauty?

If so, why is there objective truth but not objective beauty?

And how do you objectively prove there is no objective beauty?

If it is only subjectively true there is no objective beauty, you can prove nothing.



lst.edu/academics/landas-archives/373-dictatorship-of-relativism

Is it objectively true that there is no objective charm?
Is it objectively true that there is no objective allure?
Is it objectively true that there is no objective elegance?
Is it objectively true that there is no objective style?
Is it objectively true that there is no objective adorableness?
Is it objectively true that there is no objective comeliness?
Is it objectively true that there is no objective glamor?

If you want beauty to be objective, you can’t rationally argue that any those are not objective too, along with hundreds of others. Objective repugnance. Objective unprepossessingness. Objective fashionableness.

I don’t need to prove these are subjective, isn’t it glaringly obvious? Why do you want fashionableness etc. etc. to be absolute? What would it even mean?

 

[inocente]

If the beautiful does not exist as an ontological object, what is Beethoven’s 9th? A chimera?

When it was found that Winston Smith didn’t think Beethoven’s 9th beautiful, he was taken to the bowels of the Ministry of Truth for reprogramming, and after a year emerged cured. From now on, the Party would tell him what is beautiful, and obviously Big Brother knows best. Winston could see now that it was dangerous to society to have his own views. Two months later, the Party determined that Beethoven’s views were also dangerous to society, and Beethoven’s 9th became not beautiful.

“His mind slid away into the labyrinthine world of doublethink. To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself — that was the ultimate subtlety; consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word ‘doublethink’ involved the use of doublethink.” - 1984, Orwell

 

[Bradski]

I don’t need to prove these are subjective, isn’t it glaringly obvious? Why do you want fashionableness etc. etc. to be absolute? What would it even mean?

It’s important to put forward good arguments. But it’s a failing to see where they lead.

I liked the dirge, by the way.

 

[ynotzap]

I have been in “realityland”, where the fictitious characters only exist as ideas, but not in reality. Nothing else needs to be said.

If you say so.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Let’s suppose we’ve discovered that an evil scientist has genetically engineered the unborn baby such that she will die at birth, but if harvested in the next few days, her blood contains something which can cure 200 people of some nasty, otherwise terminal, disease.

Should her blood be harvested?

There are two main ways to be objective about this moral question. One is to weigh up the consequences, and you may remember this was your preference in a different moral question on another thread. So, the consequentialist says, the baby will die anyway, we’re too late to do anything about that, so let’s abort her and use her blood to save the 200. That’s an objective argument (not influenced by personal feelings, tastes or opinions).

It appears you don’t understand the difference between consequentialism and teleology or ends, or, at least, seek to misrepresent them.

The other main way to be objective is to weigh up the action itself. Some actions are so categorically wrong they can never be permitted, and this was my preference on that other dilemma. It would be in this case too. No matter what the circumstances, no matter what the consequences, the action of killing someone to use her as a means to an end is always wrong, since by destroying the dignity of her person, it destroys the dignity of all persons. That’s also an objective argument (not influenced by personal feelings, tastes or opinions).

So you have arbitrarily reified what you call the “dignity” of the person and use that as the sole premise in your, so called, “objective” argument. Yet, when I attempt – at least in your view – to reify beauty and call that an “objective” argument, you call foul.

Now explain to me why you can proclaim things “categorically” wrong or right by stipulation while I cannot proclaim things “categorically” beautiful or ugly by the same stipulation?

You insist I must “prove” the existence of beauty, but you give yourself a pass in terms of having to “prove” the existence of categorically correct morality.

Hmmm. Interesting. Proof by presumption works for you but not for anyone else with whom you happen to disagree. Why would THAT be?

As an aside, you haven’t understood my argument for beauty because I haven’t made it. I am merely, at this point, arguing that the “beauty must be subjective” is bogus.

As bogus as claiming that because people like Nucatola – who don’t agree with your view - exist, morality must, then, be subjective and merely a matter of taste. Which happens to be the sole argument presented by PA, Bradski and yourself for why beauty is subjective.

Think about it.

 

[Peter_Plato]

“Reification (also known as concretism, hypostatization, or the fallacy of misplaced concreteness) is a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event, or physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating something which is not concrete, such as an idea, as a concrete thing.” - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_%28fallacy%29

Would a good example of reification be: when a forum poster treats the abstract belief or hypothetical construct they call “human dignity” as if it were real in order to construct an argument for things being categorically wrong?

Hmmm. Yes, I see now. Thanks for pointing this out. I don’t know where I would be without you.

A Bradski, being consistent, should have by now been asking: Where doth this “human dignity” reside in humans? Is it a resident property? Can it be bought and sold? Etc., etc.

Alongside their beauty, I would expect.