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

[Peter_Plato]

Seriously!?

Of course, I don’t joke about such matters.

How would you know that information is “neither beautiful nor ugly” without making an aesthetic and, therefore, subjective claim about “information?” A claim which is the logical equivalent of saying information is/is not beautiful or ugly requires an aesthetic judgement about information thus presuming the possibility of objective aesthetic judgements in the allegedly “objective” claim that “information is neither beautiful nor ugly” - i.e., the claim that beauty is MERELY subjective.

You have to have in your mind what “beautiful” or “ugly” mean relative to information in order to deny that these apply to information. Therefore, you are making an objective claim about “beauty and ugly” wrapped up in the “subjective” statement that you insist cannot or should not be made about information in your very denial that it can be made.

You are being just as “subjective” as the person you are attempting to counter, just taking what purports to be an objective stance in this instance.

The question to be asked of you is, “How do you know information is neither beautiful nor ugly?” without basing THAT on a subjective presumption that beauty isn’t objective? What you are doing, then, is begging the question.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I’m not the one that is saying that. You are the one that has been saying that beauty is objective - and therefore must be a property of something.

Nope, I NEVER argued that beauty was a “property” of things. That has been your schtick all along.

I keep denying that for beauty to be objective it MUST be resident in objects as a “property,” but you keep trying to saddle that dead horse on my behalf.

This is a non sequitur:

Beauty is objective, therefore beauty must be a property resident in objects.

Just as this is a non sequitur:

Intelligibility (or truth) is objective, therefore intelligible (or truth) must be a property resident in objects.

Just as this is a non sequitur:

Goodness is objective, therefore goodness must be a property resident in objects.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Bradski: Is this more beautiful than that?
Charles: Yes, I think it is.
Expert: Well, actually, it’s the other one that’s more beautiful.
Charles: Oh. Looks like I was wrong.
Bradski: WTF?

The fact that people disagree about what is beautiful is no warrant for arguing that the objectively beautiful does not exist.

By the same token, the fact that scientists disagree about how the universe came to be is no warrant for arguing that there was no objectively true reason as to why it came to exist.

The fact that people disagree about the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is no warrant for arguing that the bombings were not objectively justified or unjustified.

The fact that you think you are smarter than I am is no warrant for arguing that you cannot objectively know this for a fact.

 

[Bahman]

Of course, I don’t joke about such matters.

How would you know that information is “neither beautiful nor ugly” without making an aesthetic and, therefore, subjective claim about “information?” A claim which is the logical equivalent of saying information is/is not beautiful or ugly requires an aesthetic judgement about information thus presuming the possibility of objective aesthetic judgements in the allegedly “objective” claim that “information is neither beautiful nor ugly” - i.e., the claim that beauty is MERELY subjective.

You have to have in your mind what “beautiful” or “ugly” mean relative to information in order to deny that these apply to information. Therefore, you are making an objective claim about “beauty and ugly” wrapped up in the “subjective” statement that you insist cannot or should not be made about information in your very denial that it can be made.

You are being just as “subjective” as the person you are attempting to counter, just taking what purports to be an objective stance in this instance.

The question to be asked of you is, “How do you know information is neither beautiful nor ugly?” without basing THAT on a subjective presumption that beauty isn’t objective? What you are doing, then, is begging the question.

It is very simple. Any kind of information can be converted to a series of 0 and 1. That is what we receive. Is a series of 0 and 1 beautiful or ugly? What we however perceive by act experience, when information is converted into something meaningful, could be beautiful or ugly.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Is a series of 0 and 1 beautiful or ugly?

You tell me.

Either way, you have to have a concept of “beauty” or “ugly” to make a determination that the categories don’t apply to information. Therefore, you assume “beauty” and “ugly” are objective because they either apply or don’t apply to information.

 

[inocente]

The very first dictionary I checked on line gives as its first definition of subjective, the following:

As I said, = based on personal feelings, tastes and opinions. Thanks for the confirmation.

Whereas it doesn’t tally at all with your private definition which you gave in post #22:* “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”*. The public definition does not say subjectivity has nothing to do with objectivity (people cry at funerals because of the objective nature of their loss). Nor does the public definition mention assigning qualities.

*Pay attention, Inocente, because words often have more than the “generally accepted by you” meaning. The first definition is very close to the one I am using.

The same thing happens when we look at the word objective. The very first meaning is NOT the one YOU insist is the ONLY possible meaning because it is the only one YOU are familiar with.*

As I said, = not influenced by personal feelings, tastes or opinions.

And again, it doesn’t tally with your private definition in post #22: “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”. Again, the public definition has nothing to do discerning qualities, since only minds can discern, whereas the public definition, as you yourself highlighted, is “Existing independent of or external to the mind…”

*Now, you could do the sane and correct thing and take back what amounts to a scurrilous and poor attempt to dismiss my case or you can continue to insist that you have made an error.

From my past interactions with you on these forums, I doubt the former will happen, which is why you are so much fun to joust with. It is so easy to take apart what you say and point out how parochially narrow and fraught with logical error it is.

It seems to me that we’ve had EXACTLY THIS discussion before and I pointed out your error then with little response. It seems someone does not learn from past mistakes.

Now of course, you can INSIST that you are correct and in the modern world, of which you are a part, ONLY your definitions of subjective and objective exist any more BECAUSE humans have evolved past their primitive past. Go ahead…*

As you’ve now contradicted your own definitions, I’ll let you lick your wounds. :compcoff:

Scurrilous indeed. I’m not the one who claimed that the noise made by an aging rock star resonates “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”.

philosophypages.com/dy/s9.htm#subj

Subjective: That which depends upon the personal or individual…

The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
(iep.utm.edu/objectiv/)

Note: The Encyclopedia clearly states that there are “various uses of the terms ‘objective’ and ‘subjective,’” implying that there isn’t only one definition accepted “by everyone” as you insist.

Further note that the distinction made in the above quoted article is substantively identical to the one I am using. In fact, the one that you insist is the only possible definition for each word depends upon the above distinction and does not contradict it.

The problem, for you, is that your alleged “only meaning” for each word are not the only possible ones that come from the distinction.

Sure there are various philosophical views on the nature of reality, which modify what is meant by “mind”, “world”, “reality” and so on, and therefore modify the meaning of other words. But none of that supports your private definitions, nor is it a license to make up private definitions.

The OP asks a straightforward question, summarized in the thread title “Is beauty really subjective or is it objectively determined by God?”. I already gave my view that Luke 12:27 doesn’t mention beauty (post #27), and beauty is subjective, based on personal feelings, tastes and opinions. Can you quote any theologian who says otherwise? Then we could discuss that.

 

[Bahman]

You tell me.

Information is neither beautiful or ugly. It is very simple to understand this since at is stated any kind of information can be converted to a series of 0 and 1 which is neither beautiful or ugly since 0 and 1 are not beautiful or ugly.

Either way, you have to have a concept of “beauty” or “ugly” to make a determination that the categories don’t apply to information.

Any concept is subjective in another word as it is stated any concept is the result of experience act, when information is converted into something meaningful.

Therefore, you assume “beauty” and “ugly” are objective because they either apply or don’t apply to information.

Wut?

 

[inocente]

You tell me.

Either way, you have to have a concept of “beauty” or “ugly” to make a determination that the categories don’t apply to information. Therefore, you assume “beauty” and “ugly” are objective because they either apply or don’t apply to information.

Not to sidetrack the thread but technically, Bahman is correct. The only information which leaves your eyes via the optic nerve is a stream of electrical pulses generated within the eyes, which encodes the image. That’s the only information available from which you construct your perception, there is nothing else. O wonderful, wonderful, and most wonderful wonderful! And one neuroscientist has now broken the code:

bbc.com/future/story/20141111-the-code-that-may-treat-blindness
physiology.med.cornell.edu/faculty/nirenberg/lab/

(Same thing happens with hearing, although the code isn’t broken yet. Remember that next time you listen to that aging rock star ).

 

[Bookcat]

The objective and subjective are both involved.

A person may have some impediment in appreciating say the Grand Canyon…or Niagra Falls…but that is not because they are not beautiful.

The very fact that such are visited by so many persons day in and day out – all wowed by the beauty is not due to the beauty of such places being a rather universal experience?

Same goes for so many popular “beautiful places” in the world.

There is quite an objective reality involved.

 

[Peter_Plato]

If we agree, then you are right. If we disagree, then you are right. It seems you have the call on every claim as regards the beauty of everything.

Actually Bradski, the simple fact that individuals disagree on what is “beautiful” is a tacit assent to the objective nature of beauty. If beauty were purely subjective, there could be no disagreement, whatsoever.

“I like ice cream,” is not a disputable proposition.

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.

If determinations of beauty were merely preference statements, no one would argue either way. There could be no disagreement, in principle, because it would be senseless to dispute preference claims.

It can’t be the case that “That painting is beautiful!” is semantically identical to “I like that painting,” because the first is a claim about the painting and the second is a claim about the “I” that has a particular affinity towards the painting.

To claim that determinations about beauty are nothing more than preference statements is to claim that the idea of beauty is an empty and meaningless concept that has no common ground when two individuals express their opinions about it. How could THAT be known a priori?

Yet, that “common ground” is assumed whenever disagreements about beauty are expressed. For you to claim that people do not always agree about what is beautiful and what isn’t assumes that some common notion of beauty exists that can be applied to objects even though individuals may disagree to which objects the concept, in fact, does apply.

 

[Peter_Plato]

(Same thing happens with hearing, although the code isn’t broken yet. Remember that next time you listen to that aging rock star ).

And with taste?

I suppose you want to apply the “aging” epithet to wines as well?

By your “standards” aged fine wines are no better or worse than that week old stewed grape and prune concoction you have fermenting in your basement. :doh2:

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The OP asks a straightforward question, summarized in the thread title “Is beauty really subjective or is it objectively determined by God?”. I already gave my view that Luke 12:27 doesn’t mention beauty (post #27), and beauty is subjective, based on personal feelings, tastes and opinions. Can you quote any theologian who says otherwise? Then we could discuss that.

Luke 12:2727
“Notice how the flowers grow. They do not toil or spin. But I tell you, not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of them.”

Clearly this refers to the beauty (splendor) of nature as created by God, greater than the beauty of Solomon’s dress created by men. Is the wisdom of Jesus not greater than any theologian’s?

Psalm 19:1 ►
“The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.”

 

[Peter_Plato]

Information is neither beautiful or ugly. It is very simple to understand this since at is stated any kind of information can be converted to a series of 0 and 1 which is neither beautiful or ugly since 0 and 1 are not beautiful or ugly.

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?

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

 

[inocente]

And with taste?

I suppose you want to apply the “aging” epithet to wines as well?

By your “standards” aged fine wines are no better or worse than that week old stewed grape and prune concoction you have fermenting in your basement. :doh2:

Yes, in researching it I found that taste and touch use the same kinds of encoding. Weird to learn that we’re basically digital.

In general I think the singing voice degrades with aging, whereas some wines improve. If I had to choose the voice of an aging English rock star from that era then it would be Lemmy, who turns out to have been born within a few months of your guy, from Motörhead Ace of Spades acoustic. Only know of it due to it being in a beer commercial.

But there you go, that proves beyond any reasonable doubt that beauty is in the ear of the beholder .

 

[inocente]

Luke 12:2727
“Notice how the flowers grow. They do not toil or spin. But I tell you, not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of them.”

Clearly this refers to the beauty (splendor) of nature as created by God, greater than the beauty of Solomon’s dress created by men. Is the wisdom of Jesus not greater than any theologian’s?

Psalm 19:1 ►
“The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.”

Here’s what I said earlier. Jesus isn’t talking about beauty, as can be seen from the original Greek. And He never blurts out asides, as can be seen here by reading the verse in context. Revelation can’t reveal to you when you put your own words into His mouth.

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."
*

 

[Peter_Plato]

Wut?

How do you know that beauty and ugly don’t apply to information without an informative and objective definition for what beauty and ugly actually are?

Your claim is rendered meaningless because it is self-refuting.

You would have contributed more to the discussion by being mute on the subject. THAT, at least would have been consistent.

As it is, your statement is to be understood as having the semantic content of:

Information is neither ^&&$$#% nor ##^%$^%$.

Since neither beauty nor ugly are at all informative according to your own claim, then to know that, you must have access to some information about what it is that constitutes beauty and ugly, otherwise you could make no claim at all about whether or not information can convey “beauty” or “ugly.”

Your statement presumes what beauty or ugly are in order to make a claim that they are not found in information. Yet how do you know THAT, absent information about beauty and ugly?

Beauty and ugly must be conveyable in information, somehow, or you couldn’t make your claim.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The OP asks a straightforward question, summarized in the thread title “Is beauty really subjective or is it objectively determined by God?”. I already gave my view that Luke 12:27 doesn’t mention beauty (post #27), and beauty is subjective, based on personal feelings, tastes and opinions. Can you quote any theologian who says otherwise? Then we could discuss that.

Well, we can just skip by all the preliminaries, then.

Your version suffers from precisely the same issue as Bahman’s

How do you know “beauty is subjective and only based on personal feelings, tastes and opinions” absent an objective definition or concept of what “beauty” is?

If there is no common understanding of beauty AND, according to you, none is possible, then you cannot possibly insist – with any objective certainty – that “beauty is subjective” is objectively true nor that it means anything at all.

YOU, too, along with Bahman, may just as well insist that “(&%$^#T is subjective!” for all THAT means, since (&%$^#T is as semantically and objectively empty as the word “beauty” according to the implicit assumption grounding your entire argument.

Implicit in your use of the word “beauty” is an underlying assumption that individuals are talking about the same thing, when they say “beauty,” otherwise it would be senseless to claim, “Beauty is subjective,” as if that means anything at all.

How can you possibly know you are talking about the same thing as (or argue with, for that matter) someone who claims “Beauty is objective,” WITHOUT an implicit understanding that you are talking about the same thing as they are?

Ergo, you assume the word “beauty” means something objectively real and definable in your very assertion that “BEAUTY IS SUBJECTIVE.” That, together with your tacit admission that everyone you are addressing understands precisely what you mean by the word “beauty,” implies that you give away the argument in the very act of trying to defend it.

If you want to bolster your argument at all, your BEST next move is to close your lips and say no more on the matter because with each attempt at defending your assertion you dig a little deeper in the trench called “Argument Refuted.”

 

[ynotzap]

I am!

Axe me another question.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Here’s what I said earlier. Jesus isn’t talking about beauty, as can be seen from the original Greek. And He never blurts out asides, as can be seen here by reading the verse in context. Revelation can’t reveal to you when you put your own words into His mouth.

That he is not talking about beauty is certain. The subject is about human frailty, as you say.

But this does not overcome the remark by Jesus about the God given objective beauty (splendor) of his Creation. This beauty of the flowers is not merely imaginary. It is objectively real. If you can spin that passage to say the Jesus is not talking about objective beauty of the flowers, go right ahead.

 

[Bradski]

Nope, I NEVER argued that beauty was a “property” of things. That has been your schtick all along.

If it’s an intrinsic part of whatever is under discussion, then there is no doubt that it is a property. An attribute, a feature, a trait – call it what you will, it is inherent within that something. You seem to want to redefine terms to fit your argument.

Beauty is objective, therefore beauty must be a property resident in objects.
Intelligibility (or truth) is objective, therefore intelligible (or truth) must be a property resident in objects.
Goodness is objective, therefore goodness must be a property resident in objects.

Beauty and goodness are subjective and relative concepts. Each person decides whether it exists and to what degree in whatever is being discussed. Intelligibility is the degree to which something can be understood which will vary from person to person and cannot be bracketed with truth which relates to the factual component (the square on the hypotenuse etc).

Actually Bradski, the simple fact that individuals disagree on what is “beautiful” is a tacit assent to the objective nature of beauty.

Wow…People disagree on the relative aesthetic appeal of a painting, therefore beauty is objective. Congratulations – you’ve won The Most Facile Argument Of The Week award.

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.

That’s simply a common useage of language. Really, I shouldn’t have to argue that when someone insists that a painting is beautiful if someone else claims it is ugly then they are making a statement about their personal preference. It appears that it might only be you who is actually insisting it IS more beautiful.

Yet, that “common ground” is assumed whenever disagreements about beauty are expressed. For you to claim that people do not always agree about what is beautiful and what isn’t assumes that some common notion of beauty exists that can be applied to objects even though individuals may disagree to which objects the concept, in fact, does apply.

A common notion of beauty does not imply that it is an objective property. ‘Beauty’ has a common definition – let’s say ‘pleasing to the eye’. The degree at which it is pleasing to the eye will vary. If you can find a definition that says that it is an inherent property of anything at all, then please feel free to post it.

By your “standards” aged fine wines are no better or worse than that week old stewed grape and prune concoction you have fermenting in your basement.

You are continuing to confuse (intentionally I’d say) the fact that if some aesthetic quality is relative, there can’t be a general agreement on it’s quality (‘If beauty is relative, there are no beautiful paintings/music/sculptures/literature’). Abject nonsense.

Implicit in your use of the word “beauty” is an underlying assumption that individuals are talking about the same thing, when they say “beauty,” otherwise it would be senseless to claim, “Beauty is subjective,” as if that means anything at all.

We ARE all talking about the same thing: Qualities that are pleasing to the aesthetic senses. Everyone has the same definition (except probably you – they seem to change depending on the wind direction) but how we personally interpret them are individual decisions.

But there you go, that proves beyond any reasonable doubt that beauty is in the ear of the beholder .

The well-known effect that alcohol has prompts the revised quote: ‘Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder’.