What is "beauty"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_III
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Charlemagne_III

Guest
I’m looking for answers, in any order, to any one or all of the following questions:

Define “beauty” or “the beautiful.”

Is all beauty purely subjective, or is there objective beauty?

Why do people disagree (sometimes violently) about what is beautiful?

How do we distinguish the ugly from the beautiful?

Is sacred art proof for the existence of God?

How do we distinguish the artists from the critic?

O.K. Too many questions? 😃 Pick just one.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
Define “beauty” or “the beautiful.”
Click to expand...
A sort of quality in a being which pleasing for some, namely beautiful and displeasing for others.
Charlemagne_III said:
Is all beauty purely subjective, or is there objective beauty?
Click to expand...
It is purely subjective.
Charlemagne_III said:
Why do people disagree (sometimes violently) about what is beautiful?
Click to expand...
Please read the first comment.
Charlemagne_III said:
How do we distinguish the ugly from the beautiful?
Click to expand...
Please read the first comment.
Charlemagne_III said:
Is sacred art proof for the existence of God?
Click to expand...
No, the only reality that we are 100% sure about is that we exist.
Charlemagne_III said:
How do we distinguish the artists from the critic?
Click to expand...
Please read the first comment. The point is that truth has nothing with what is appealing to us.
 
Hello.

My dad told me beauty is that which is pleasing when seen - and I sort of expanded that definition in my mind to include also what is heard, read, smelled, etc.

… my :twocents:
 
Bahman said:
The point is that truth has nothing with what is appealing to us.
Click to expand...
That could be said about a flower.

Could it be said about as falsely written poem, song, or movie that does not truly depict human nature?
 
crenfro said:
Hello.

My dad told me beauty is that which is pleasing when seen - and I sort of expanded that definition in my mind to include also what is heard, read, smelled, etc.

… my :twocents:
Click to expand...
The beautiful surely rises above that which is merely pleasing.
 
D. Von Hildebrand had some interesting things to say as well.

For one thing the reality that a person may not be perceptive to a particular beauty - a kind of blindness (I am going on old memories here).

I would say that there is much that is “objective” as well as yes there is subjective facility more or less available. Some are able to respond to this beauty -others to that. And some can simply have bad taste 😉
 
Charlemagne_III said:
That could be said about a flower.
Could it be said about as falsely written poem, song, or movie that does not truly depict human nature?
Click to expand...
Suffering and pleasure, evil or good, ugly and beautiful, etc are the main force moving us. There is a dual for any quality you can imagine, otherwise we could judge the truth based on single quality which doesn’t have a dual, namely finding the core truth about our natures.
 
Bookcat said:
Here from the Great Thomist Jacques Maritain: www3.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/art.htm

The beginning of Chapter V will be of interest.
Click to expand...
Good, now we are getting to the heart of it. Maritain is one of my favorite writers on art.

Is there something from this source you cited that you would like to offer?

I’ve always been interested in the subject of the moral responsibility of the artist.

This quote from Maritain is really interesting as it relates to Art and Responsibility.

“Adam sinned because he failed in contemplation. Ever since, the heart of man has been divided.”
 
Who is it -upon beholding the grand canyon or niagra falls - that does not encounter beauty?
 
There is an objective that is absolute beauty, that when experience is subjective to the ones that experience Him.

God is absolute beauty.

We experience His beauty and it brings about a spiritual, psychological and even physical delight. The highest of those delights we would call happiness.

Loving others is one of the basic ways to experience His beauty and find happiness subjectively.
 
Here is another quote from Maritian that, no doubt, many moderns would take issue with.

“If beauty delights the intellect, it is because it is essentially a certain excellence or perfection in the proportion of things to the intellect. Hence the three conditions Saint Thomas assigned to beauty: integrity, because the intellect is pleased in fullness of Being; proportion, because the intellect is pleased in order and unity; finally, and above all, radiance or clarity, because the intellect is pleased in light and intelligibility.”
 
The definition for beauty in general is: that which brings pleasure, delight, enjoyment and happiness.

Ugly: that which causes pain, displeasure, despair, hate (turning away from the object), and misery.

If a person is normal (what ever that might mean), birth should bring about happiness on all of the levels.

Violent murder should cause the displeasure and so forth.
 
Jim_Baur said:
The definition for beauty in general is: that which brings pleasure, delight, enjoyment and happiness.

Ugly: that which causes pain, displeasure, despair, hate (turning away from the object), and misery.

If a person is normal (what ever that might mean), birth should bring about happiness on all of the levels.

Violent murder should cause the displeasure and so forth.
Click to expand...
This is a good definition. Let me add one more thing.

I think at the basis of beauty is health.

For a living thing, such as person, animals and plants, health, be it physical, mental and spiritual, is the foundation of beauty.

This is why a healthy rose bush, filled with blossoms and nice shiny leaves is considered beautiful. A person whose spiritual, mental and physical aspects are healthy can be called beautiful. A landscape, unspoiled by pollution can be called beautiful. A pristine beach, without pollution is beautiful.

Well, I hope you get my drift.
 
Sarcelle said:
Well, I hope you get my drift.
Click to expand...
Got it! Even a mind, if it has no physical attributes that are discernible, is beautiful if it truly reveals something profoundly good and healthy for us to know.

Physicians are among the great artists of the world, unless they are busy carving up unborn children. An ugly thing to behold, and we can imagine how spiritually unhealthy and deformed are the people who do this and those who champion the doing of this.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
I’m looking for answers, in any order, to any one or all of the following questions:

Define “beauty” or “the beautiful.”

Is all beauty purely subjective, or is there objective beauty?

Why do people disagree (sometimes violently) about what is beautiful?

How do we distinguish the ugly from the beautiful?

Is sacred art proof for the existence of God?

How do we distinguish the artists from the critic?

O.K. Too many questions? 😃 Pick just one.
Click to expand...
Thomas Aquinas defines existence, good, true, and beautiful as identical to one another.

So what exists is good, true, and beautiful.

See S.T., Part 1, Ques 3, also Commentary on A’s Metaphysics.

Linus2nd
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top