The aesthetic arguement

[MindOverMatter2]

1. Beauty in varying degrees exists in universe

Conclusion: Therefore an absolute perfect objective standard of beauty exists at the root of physical reality because more cannot come from that which is intrinsically less.

Is this argument correct?

 

[Thomas_Francis]

That’s pretty much one of Aquinas’ five proofs. Check out the Summa Theologica, Article 2 Question 3.

 

[Perplexity]

I think a distinction needs to be drawn between ‘within a series’ and ‘outside of a series.’ You’ll see why in a moment.

So, we recognize gradation of all kinds of properties. This is why we have superlatives. Take heat for instance. I know that the sun is “hotter” than the flame of a match.

When we take the objects exemplifying the property under discussion, we get a set or a series containing just those objects. Now, within that series (say of heat), we can say this object, the sun, is hotter than that object, the flame of a match. We needn’t appeal to anything outside of that series which might exemplify the property (in this case, of heat) greater or lesser than. We know the objects within the series have these superlative properties simply by comparing them, not by comparing them to something outside of the series.

The question I’d ask is why we need to appeal to something outside of the series, which, allegedly is maximal with respect to the relavant property within the series. It seems we get along just fine without doing so. i.e., we recognize superlative properties within a series without ever mentioning something outside of it possessing the property maximally.

 

[Luke_K]

Define “beauty”.

 

[tonyrey]

Define “beauty”.

Beauty is produced by harmony which gives us delight because everything blends together so exquisitely that the relationship of the parts to the whole does not seem contingent but necessary. The beauty of nature is so perfect - often with a mathematical basis like the Golden Ratio - that it seems designed by a Supreme Artist. Not for nothing is it also called the “divine proportion”…

 

[JDaniel]

I think a distinction needs to be drawn between ‘within a series’ and ‘outside of a series.’ You’ll see why in a moment.

So, we recognize gradation of all kinds of properties. This is why we have superlatives. Take heat for instance. I know that the sun is “hotter” than the flame of a match.

When we take the objects exemplifying the property under discussion, we get a set or a series containing just those objects. Now, within that series (say of heat), we can say this object, the sun, is hotter than that object, the flame of a match. We needn’t appeal to anything outside of that series which might exemplify the property (in this case, of heat) greater or lesser than. We know the objects within the series have these superlative properties simply by comparing them, not by comparing them to something outside of the series.

The question I’d ask is why we need to appeal to something outside of the series, which, allegedly is maximal with respect to the relevant property within the series. It seems we get along just fine without doing so. i.e., we recognize superlative properties within a series without ever mentioning something outside of it possessing the property maximally.

Perplexity:

To an extent, you are correct. (Bet you never thought I’d say that!) The heat of some star will be the pinnacle of the series in the order of “heat.” And, we have some idea that a pinnacle is true of other ordered series as well.

But, ultimately, our questions about a reality still bring other questions, such as, whether or not every position in the particular order under consideration is “conditioned.” IOW, are its conditions fulfilled? Does, the sun endure forever? If it does not, which seems to be the case with stars, upon what is it conditioned in order for it to exist right now, or to begin existence? Hydrogen? Helium? What other conditionals are necessary for the sun to be? And, how did it come about? These are some of the questions that science tries to answer with regard to the sun’s conditions.

So, conditions exist in all things which must be fulfilled in order for them to exist or come to be. What, for example, are the conditions that must be fulfilled for helium? Well, helium is produced by the nuclear fusion of hydrogen atoms. So, one of helium’s conditions is hydrogen. And, hydrogen’s is . . .? Etc, etc. . . .?

Ultimately we must come to a reality that is unconditioned, i.e., an ultimate, unconditioned exigency capable of starting other realities and keeping them going, in some manner. But, if everything is “conditioned,” we are then left with either an infinity of conditioned realities, or a fundamental conditioned reality. And, we run into the same problem that St. Thomas and Bernard Lonergan ran headlong into, namely, that both a finite set and an infinite set, of conditioned realities resolve down to either some ultimate, conditioned reality, or final, conditioned reality, whose conditions are never fulfilled. And, yes, I included “infinite” conditioned realities in this scenario as too many people do not know what “infinite” means.

What would be the conditions, or a final condition, for a quark? What are the conditions for mesons, bosons, fermions, and neutrinos for example? At the virtual state of most of these, they are still called virtual particles. In this range of quantum mechanics, their existences cancel out their existences. But, science continues to look. And, perhaps one day science may get a glimpse of the unconditioned reality. In fact, science may find that the ultimate conditional for quantum and virtual particles is the Unconditioned Reality itself.

Therefore, we look beyond the pinnacle of an ordered series precisely to know if our perception of what we think is the pinnacle of an ordered series, is in fact the ultimate pinnacle. We aren’t looking “outside” of it so much as we are looking inward to find out if our hierarchical series ends, i.e, actually tops out there. If it doesn’t, then we have not found the pinnacle, or progenitor of the order.

God bless,
jd

 

[Whadyamean]

Therefore, we look beyond the pinnacle of an ordered series precisely to know if our perception of what we think is the pinnacle of an ordered series, is in fact the ultimate pinnacle. We aren’t looking “outside” of it so much as we are looking inward to find out if our hierarchical series ends, i.e, actually tops out there. If it doesn’t, then we have not found the pinnacle, or progenitor of the order.

God bless,
jd

I like what you say. I wonder what you think of the idea that all “arguments” are strictly and only from the necessary point of view of the human mind turned to the contemplation of an ideal. Therefore all the parameters and conditions of the argument are strictly human and stem from human values, all relative despite some claims to “absolutes.,” revealed or otherwise, as these yet are comprehended to the degree of the limits of human perception. Humanity itself is astonishingly localized, considering the Universe and what might be before, after, or alongside it that is unknowable, that including Deity. Further, the human range of perception is very spectrum limited and of exceptionally short duration despite the passing on of culture and concepts. So it would take some form of perception beyond human, or the transcendence of perception itself as a limit, to pursue the pinnacle idea. Nominally, the “name” of that pinnacle would be “God” or an equivalent word, but until that Pinnacle is experienced directly, all we have are theories, thoughts about, and beleifs clung to until…

 

[Perplexity]

Ultimately we must come to a reality that is unconditioned, i.e., an ultimate, unconditioned exigency capable of starting other realities and keeping them going, in some manner.

This doesn’t seem to be the aesthetic argument though.

I don’t see we must come to one. I see several other viable options on the table:

(i) There are at least two (perhaps more) ultimate, unconditioned exigencies capable of starting other realities…etc.

(ii) Stuff came from nothing.

(iii) The past is infinite.

I know you don’t even entertain the latter two. But, perhaps you could share why (i) isn’t an option?

 

[inocente]

Conclusion: Therefore an absolute perfect objective standard of beauty exists at the root of physical reality because more cannot come from that which is intrinsically less.

A real male frog finds a female frog more beautiful than any fairytale princess.

Or if you don’t think other species have aesthetics, post six images you find most beautiful. If we all agree they are the most beautiful we’ve ever seen and place them in the same order then you might be on to something, but probably it will turn out that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

I think we have to allow that God might find a whole lot more beauty around than any of we do.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

A real male frog finds a female frog more beautiful than any fairytale princess.

Or if you don’t think other species have aesthetics, post six images you find most beautiful. If we all agree they are the most beautiful we’ve ever seen and place them in the same order then you might be on to something, but probably it will turn out that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

I think we have to allow that God might find a whole lot more beauty around than any of we do.

Personal experience can certainly shape what we “prefer”. And of course there are different kinds of beauty that different minds will find more appealing than the rest. However, i do not believe that beauty is purely subjective. I think everybody can agree when they see a very beautiful women, even though that such a women may not be their personal preference. There seems to be some experiences of beauty that are universal like a sun set. A man might not be into sunsets because for some silly reason he thinks its not something a man should be into, but he could not deny that its beautiful.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

A real male frog finds a female frog more beautiful than any fairytale princess.

Animals move on impulse. They do not admire beautiful paintings. They couldn’t care less.

 

[Alindawyl]

This doesn’t seem to be the aesthetic argument though.

I don’t see we must come to one. I see several other viable options on the table:

(i) There are at least two (perhaps more) ultimate, unconditioned exigencies capable of starting other realities…etc.

(ii) Stuff came from nothing.

(iii) The past is infinite.

I know you don’t even entertain the latter two. But, perhaps you could share why (i) isn’t an option?

Based on the concept expressed by the word ultimate, there can’t be multiples. Whether it means “final” or “highest” or “most basic” or “conclusive”, all of the meanings of ultimate refer to something singular.

 

[Perplexity]

Based on the concept expressed by the word ultimate, there can’t be multiples. Whether it means “final” or “highest” or “most basic” or “conclusive”, all of the meanings of ultimate refer to something singular.

This isn’t an objection to (i) though. Think about it: ‘The ultimate choir’, ‘the ultimate military’, ‘the ultimate team’ etc.

 

[tonyrey]

I like what you say. I wonder what you think of the idea that all “arguments” are strictly and only from the necessary point of view of the human mind turned to the contemplation of an ideal. Therefore all the parameters and conditions of the argument are strictly human and stem from human values, all relative despite some claims to “absolutes.,” revealed or otherwise, as these yet are comprehended to the degree of the limits of human perception. Humanity itself is astonishingly localized, considering the Universe and what might be before, after, or alongside it that is unknowable, that including Deity. Further, the human range of perception is very spectrum limited and of exceptionally short duration despite the passing on of culture and concepts. So it would take some form of perception beyond human, or the transcendence of perception itself as a limit, to pursue the pinnacle idea. Nominally, the “name” of that pinnacle would be “God” or an equivalent word, but until that Pinnacle is experienced directly, all we have are theories, thoughts about, and beleifs clung to until…

I agree with you but our remarkable power of reason and the astonishing success of science are evidence that our interpretation of reality is not misguided as regards the rational structure and intelligibility of the universe…

 

[tonyrey]

This isn’t an objection to (i) though. Think about it: ‘The ultimate choir’, ‘the ultimate military’, ‘the ultimate team’ etc.

Occam’s Razor is not a factor to ignore…

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I think a distinction needs to be drawn between ‘within a series’ and ‘outside of a series.’ You’ll see why in a moment.

So, we recognize gradation of all kinds of properties. This is why we have superlatives. Take heat for instance. I know that the sun is “hotter” than the flame of a match.

When we take the objects exemplifying the property under discussion, we get a set or a series containing just those objects. Now, within that series (say of heat), we can say this object, the sun, is hotter than that object, the flame of a match. We needn’t appeal to anything outside of that series which might exemplify the property (in this case, of heat) greater or lesser than. We know the objects within the series have these superlative properties simply by comparing them, not by comparing them to something outside of the series.

The question I’d ask is why we need to appeal to something outside of the series, which, allegedly is maximal with respect to the relavant property within the series. It seems we get along just fine without doing so. i.e., we recognize superlative properties within a series without ever mentioning something outside of it possessing the property maximally.

Can you please tell me what you think of this argument in the link…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=622711

 

[Alindawyl]

This isn’t an objection to (i) though. Think about it: ‘The ultimate choir’, ‘the ultimate military’, ‘the ultimate team’ etc.

In what definition of the word ultimate does it ever mean more than one?

Those three things you list are all singular…

 

[Perplexity]

In what definition of the word ultimate does it ever mean more than one?

Those three things you list are all singular…

Of course they’re singular. So why can’t there be an ultimate group of gods? You want to say there is only one God. You can’t show this by saying “ultimate” is singular, since then I’ll just use “ultimate” as an adjective for a group, set or series.

 

[Alindawyl]

Of course they’re singular. So why can’t there be an ultimate group of gods? You want to say there is only one God. You can’t show this by saying “ultimate” is singular, since then I’ll just use “ultimate” as an adjective for a group, set or series.

Surely you aren’t thinking of a group which consists of a finite number of finite beings who together somehow make up an infinite group? Because 1 + 1 + 1 cannot equal infinity.

Of course by “ultimate group of gods” I suppose that you COULD mean “the Blessed Trinity”. That’s three divine persons who fully possess the single divine essence of God, each of Whom is Himself an infinite. But that’s theology, not philosophy, since we only know that from Divine Revelation. Human reason alone cannot possibly arrive at such a concept. Human reason can’t even explain the Blessed Trinity WITH Divine Revelation to assist it.

So… yeah. Good luck if you think you can explain such a thing at all, especially only with human reason.

 

[Perplexity]

Surely you aren’t thinking of a group which consists of a finite number of finite beings who together somehow make up an infinite group? Because 1 + 1 + 1 cannot equal infinity.

Of course by “ultimate group of gods” I suppose that you COULD mean “the Blessed Trinity”. That’s three divine persons who fully possess the single divine essence of God, each of Whom is Himself an infinite. But that’s theology, not philosophy, since we only know that from Divine Revelation. Human reason alone cannot possibly arrive at such a concept. Human reason can’t even explain the Blessed Trinity WITH Divine Revelation to assist it.

So… yeah. Good luck if you think you can explain such a thing at all, especially only with human reason.

I’m not sure where you get quantitative infinity from. Theist’s don’t speak of God as infinite in quantitative terms. So, I mean a group of at least two beings (perhaps more) who form the ultimate ______ (qualititative infinity?).

I haven’t heard a good reason to think only one God exists yet, that’s why I mentioned this. Aquinas’ quinque viae suffered from this problem as well: none of his premises compel us to say there’s only one thingymabob.