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

[Bradski]

Suppose we talk about complexity. Would it not be accurate or appropriate to speak of varying complexity, say, in the range of species of animals? That an amoeba is far less complex as an organism than an orangutan? In a similar sense, God would have to “turn up” the complexity of different species. So like your issue with beauty, why would it be unspeakable of God to decide how much complexity to give to one thing over another such that everything is not equally complex?

I’m sorry, you must be confusing me with someone who believes in God. I don’t think He does any of this.

But it is the undeniable conclusion for what you are proposing. That as well as God imbuing literally everything with a certain degree of beauty (Mmm, let’s make this just a little less ugly and this one…well, a little more beautiful, I think) He also turns it up or down depending on the time, the climatic conditions, the position of the observer (it’s only a beautiful sunrise if you’re standing in a particular spot on the planet), the location, the lighting etc etc. (heavens, it’s all relative…).

Like I said, you haven’t thought this through. Because if God does objectively determine beauty, He does all this. Not that I think that He couldn’t. Him being God and all. But this concept of beauty is becoming a little slippery. A little less distinct. In fact, so much that it can hardly be called objective in any real sense of the word.

Why couldn’t God determine beauty in much the same way he determines complexity, for example? That is not necessarily to accept that current or past views of beauty were necessarily correct, merely that these glimpsed something of the quality without providing a complete accounting, which would only be known fully - as with truth and goodness - in the beatific vision of God.

You are the one that says He does all this. Why in heaven’s name are you asking me if it’s possible? If you don’t know, it’s sometimes a very good idea to say: ‘I don’t know’. You obviously don’t, so here’s the opportunity:

Does God imbue everything with objective, differing and constantly changing degrees of beauty?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Why in heaven’s name are you asking me if it’s possible?

So, you have no reason to think it impossible. That is all I need.

If you don’t know, it’s sometimes a very good idea to say: ‘I don’t know’. You obviously don’t, so here’s the opportunity:

Does God imbue everything with objective, differing and constantly changing degrees of beauty?

Sure.

Since our progenitors asked for “knowledge of good and evil,” that knowledge is what they and we were given - including knowledge of beauty and ugly; truth and falsity; what is and what should never be (to quote a Led Zeppelin song,) etc., etc.

youtu.be/uzK0pYJbfKg

 

[Peter_Plato]

Like I said, you haven’t thought this through. Because if God does objectively determine beauty, He does all this. Not that I think that He couldn’t. Him being God and all. But this concept of beauty is becoming a little slippery. A little less distinct. In fact, so much that it can hardly be called objective in any real sense of the word.

Kind of like truth and goodness, eh?

Both of which seem a “little slippery” as well. Some would even say “hardly objective in any real sense of the word.”

I, of course, disagree with them, too.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Does God imbue everything with objective, differing and constantly changing degrees of beauty?

Since that is what we experience in life, most likely God does just as you say.

But how does your question play into our discussion?

Does it pose a logical difficulty for you? If so, how so?

 

[Aloysium]

. . . youtu.be/uzK0pYJbfKg

Thinking back, I believe I may have been living in my parents’ home when the song came out.
The song sounds amazing and is made better by the feel that was the late sixties for me.
I am thinking that my mom, who was an opera buff, and my dad who wanted his peace and quiet, would have just focussed on what to them may have been a bunch of screaming.
When we talk of subjectivity, we isolate these reactions from their source in the world; so, the argument as pointed out here and elsewhere, becomes a begging of the question - music is subjective, hence its beauty is subjective (beauty of course being in the music).
The music stands as itself in its complexity and capacity to evoke various reactions. If someone were to open up to it, they would hear its magic. The experience would likely differ from mine, but there is a beauty to it that only someone who wants to be hard-headed will fail to hear.

 

[TimothyH]

Mary is the most beautiful in all creation.

For she is more beautiful than the sun,
and excels every constellation of the stars.
Compared with the light she is found to be superior,
(Wisdom 17:29)

-Tim-

 

[inocente]

Well, it would seem rather obtuse to claim that the “Grand Canyon’s staggering beauty exists” ONLY because and when he thinks of it.

Yes, as I said “By saying “the Grand Canyon’s staggering beauty exists”, you are making a claim, that a specific instance of beauty exists independently of you. Well, obviously if your claim is true, and the instance of beauty exists independently of you, it will exist whether or not you like it. But you’ve not said anything to prove your claim that the instance of beauty exists independently of you.”

It would appear, by the fact that virtually every human who views the Grand Canyon is overwhelmed by the sight of it, that its beauty is not merely dependent upon any one subject, but does, indeed, exist “independently of you” or any other single subject.

I pointed out the flaw in the logic, and just restated it. Logical flaws can’t be repaired by a majority vote.

What further proof is required other than to point out that insisting that the beauty of the Grand Canyon is subject dependent is patently as silly as claiming that the existence of the Grand Canyon itself is subject dependent.

That’s illogical, you’re basically claiming that because people see beauty in the story of Don Quixote, he must really have existed.

We can stand on the North Rim, climb down the Canyon, raft through it, I’ve done all three, got the tee-shirt. Difference between tangible and intangible.

 

[inocente]

Never having seen the Grand Canyon, but listening to people’s descriptions, I thought I’d give a try at explaining its beauty.
I imagine the immensity, dwarfing the individual. While some see the dirt that is beneath them, others gaze in wonder at what is beyond themselves. We are not ants; it is huge!!
The river that cut through the rock, has carved out a history of the world. Ancient sediments formed of what once was surface, and buried layer after layer, deep into the ground, in time are there for all to see and remember what was before we were.
The Grand Canyon speaks of infinite spaces and infinite time. It’s beauty lies in its revelation of the Beauty that lies within and encompasses all spaces and all times.
Some see a collection of rocks. Look up!!

No, look down! You should go. Start at the South Rim visitor center, where (from memory) the Canyon is four miles across and one mile deep. Walk away from everyone else and sit with your legs dangling over the edge. Once you’re over the visual overload, you hear the sounds coming up from below, like nothing else you’re every experienced.

Personally, I wouldn’t call it beautiful, because beautiful only means “pleasing the senses or mind aesthetically”, which doesn’t do it justice. May as well call it cute, classy and delightful. In reality, life-changing, an epiphany, transcendental. Beautiful doesn’t get close.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . because people see beauty in the story of Don Quixote, he must really have existed. . .

From what I recall Don Quixote is a story that entertains the concepts of truth, justice and reality. Don Quixote sees what are harmless windmills to everyone else, threatening giants, and two lowly prostitutes, as kind ladies of stature, who recognize his nobility. Its a rather tragic story of courage misdirected. Its beauty lies not in the reality of the character but in that of truth, justice, honour and courage. If “objective” is meant to be synonymous with “real”, what does exist are these objective beautiful truths. And, who is it that is Truth, Justice and Beauty itself?

 

[inocente]

From what I recall Don Quixote is a story that entertains the concepts of truth, justice and reality. Don Quixote sees what are harmless windmills to everyone else, threatening giants, and two lowly prostitutes, as kind ladies of stature, who recognize his nobility. Its a rather tragic story of courage misdirected. Its beauty lies not in the reality of the character but in that of truth, justice, honour and courage. If “objective” is meant to be synonymous with “real”, what does exist are these objective beautiful truths. And, who is it that is Truth, Justice and Beauty itself?

But subjective doesn’t mean unreal, when you’re sad you’re really sad and when you’re happy you’re really happy. Subjective reality is just as real as objective reality, possibly more real to the person experiencing it.

Also, I think you’ve switched from philosophy to religion - a Buddhist wouldn’t agree with reifying those words, that depends on your faith not on a logical argument .

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The song sounds amazing and is made better by the feel that was the late sixties for me.
I am thinking that my mom, who was an opera buff, and my dad who wanted his peace and quiet, would have just focussed on what to them may have been a bunch of screaming.

Some of the great singers of the 60s, including Bob Dylan, claimed to be influenced by this fellow. Here is his signature song.

youtube.com/watch?v=fGySEN46NzI

Here is Emmy Lou Harris doing the same song.

youtube.com/watch?v=EzTirzJsFM8

 

[Bradski]

So, you have no reason to think it impossible. That is all I need.

You already know my position. Beauty is in no way whatsoever objective. Period. And as I don’t believe in God the question in the OP actually makes no sense. But if you want to play word games and ask me if everything I believe I can be 100% sure about, then the answer will always be no. But you knew that anyway. And you know that any discussion is always, at least from my perspective, conducted on that basis. I’m not sure that Christians always have that option. Nevertheless…

Sure.

The fact that it is not the most definitive of answers and you have tacked on a smiley as perhaps a get-out-of-jail card (hey, you don’t really think I was serious, do you?) is noted. However, it is an affirmative answer to specific questions. You believe that there is a universal hierarchy of beauty that is relative to a variety of scenarios.

In fact, an infinitely variable hierarchy that is relative to time and position and a myriad other determinants. Not only that, but we have a position whereby this quality is not just comparable between like items, it is also comparable between literally everything (if a rock has an objective quality of beauty and so does a banana, then one must be more or less beautiful than the other). So the proposed suggestion earlier that some art critic who is in touch with some ethereal notion of artistic aesthetics might be able to quantify the specific beauty of a specific painting is a waste of time.

She wouldn’t be able to quantify it (what scale would you suggest?) and it is worthless comparing it to another painting as we are not talking specifically about paintings but about beauty itself. So she would have to compare it to literally everything else to get a comparative worth. So is the art critic an expert on the aesthetic value of sunsets or canyons or bananas? Is the sunset more beautiful at this particular moment seen from this particular position than the canyon seen from this particular perspective at this particular time and are either more or less beautiful than the painting? These sound nonsensical questions, but they are a DIRECT result of claiming believing beauty to be objective.

Notwithstanding that things like sunsets, or canyons or vistas are hardly objects containing beauty. They are a conglomeration of different things, each infinitely variable in their so called quality of beauty.

So what we now have is a quality that you say exists but which is not quantifiable, is not comparable, is infinitely variable, changes incrementally on a constant basis, differs if considered independently or within a different context and is completely relative to an infinite variety of scenarios.

And for all this you have zero evidence. None whatsoever. Nothing except an assertion that it must be true. Or actually, a rather weak ‘sure’ (plus smiley) if you are pressed to actually lay your cards on the table.

Any my evidence for subjectivity? Well, that will just need you and me and a simple question: Which is more beautiful? Wish You Were Here or What Is And Never Should Be?

 

[Aloysium]

. . . youtube.com/watch?v=fGySEN46NzI . . . youtube.com/watch?v=EzTirzJsFM8

Kinda, makes me want to get my guitar, throw some clothes into a knapsack, go stick out my thumb on the side of the highway and see where life leads me.

The other week I visited a friend who lives in an upscale, well-kept, small town.
We attended an evening jazz concert in a grassy round surrounded by trees.
We sat on the folded fabric chairs we had brought with us.
The air was fresh, the band precise, the clarinet was fabulous.
It got the crowd, whose average age was late 60’s, hopping.
Well maybe not hopping but there was lots of toe tapping going on.
Some tried to stand for an ovation, but aged backs take a while to unseize.
“Woodstock 46 years later; who would have thought.” I remarked to my friend.
Guess you had to be there. In that crowd, the joke was objectively funny.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . a Buddhist wouldn’t agree . . .

A Buddhist is only as good as his master. No magisterium there. I think Christianity is the fulfillment of Buddhism, filling the gaps in its understanding of where and why we are.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Notwithstanding that things like sunsets, or canyons or vistas are hardly objects containing beauty. They are a conglomeration of different things, each infinitely variable in their so called quality of beauty.

This sounds very much like an admission that sunsets, canyons or vistas possess “an infinitely variable” amount of some quality that you just don’t want to come right out and call ‘beauty,’ but freely admit that the “so called” it - whatever “it” is - is present in those “conglomerations of different things.”

“Something is there,” admits Bradski, “but I’ll resist calling it ‘beauty’ because THAT would be giving away the farm! I’ll call it, therefore, ‘so called beauty.’ What a clever fellow I am”

 

[Peter_Plato]

Yes, as I said “By saying “the Grand Canyon’s staggering beauty exists”, you are making a claim, that a specific instance of beauty exists independently of you. Well, obviously if your claim is true, and the instance of beauty exists independently of you, it will exist whether or not you like it. But you’ve not said anything to prove your claim that the instance of beauty exists independently of you.”

I pointed out the flaw in the logic, and just restated it. Logical flaws can’t be repaired by a majority vote.

Logical flaws only apply where logic is required.

It seems odd that anyone would seek proof for an instance of beauty existing independently of the subject of the experience when all that would be required would be to drive to the Grand Canyon and experience it. What more “proof” would be necessary?

This doesn’t even rise to the level of a blind man requiring proof that colours exist because he cannot experience them, this is more on the level of a sighted person requiring “proof” of colours that he merely has to open his eyes to see.

Why does the burden of proof fall on the one claiming that what is before our eyes exists in the only real sense we can possibly experience? Shouldn’t the burden fall on the one who denies what he is staring at yet cannot possibly deny, except on the basis of some convoluted logic that wants him to insist what he sees doesn’t “really” exist?

Shouldn’t the burden of proof fall on the individual who seeks to deny what is simply self-evident to anyone who hasn’t lost his/her capacity to experience reality as it is?

 

[Bradski]

Why does the burden of proof fall on the one claiming that what is before our eyes exists in the only real sense we can possibly experience?

You are bending the argument to suit a failed proposal.

No-on, repeat no-one is suggesting, has suggested or likely will suggest that beauty does not exist. Your opinion that it is objective is duly noted. And rejected.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . no-one is suggesting, has suggested or likely will suggest that beauty does not exist. Your opinion that it is objective is duly noted. And rejected.

I would think it is no more subjective than is mathematics or any field of science which utilizes ideas to understand what is out there.
Actually, the existence of beauty makes a lie of subject-object duality.
This is all about the relationship.
And, when one perceives the beauty of an object, one is perfecting the connection with that object.

 

[inocente]

Logical flaws only apply where logic is required.

It seems odd that anyone would seek proof for an instance of beauty existing independently of the subject of the experience when all that would be required would be to drive to the Grand Canyon and experience it. What more “proof” would be necessary?

And if early settlers got into the Canyon without realizing how long it extends, and almost died trying to find food and shelter, and didn’t see one second of the experience as beautiful, you would say they should have waited until it could be viewed as a theme park from an air-conditioned car, because only rich folk who aren’t having to keep themselves alive can appreciate True Beauty™?

Or if someone in your air-conditioned car says they don’t think it beautiful, you drive them straight to a mental hospital for “correction”?

I’ve not found any of your arguments convincing, they all seem to rest on “I think Pink Floyd is beautiful and anyone who doesn’t is wrong, so there”. As I said, thanks for the conversation, see you around.

 

[inocente]

A Buddhist is only as good as his master. No magisterium there. I think Christianity is the fulfillment of Buddhism, filling the gaps in its understanding of where and why we are.

As you’ve just confirmed, that depends on personal beliefs.