What is Beauty?

[Guest Copycatalyst]

Beauty is not subjective. It's all in my post, and if you don't want to read it don't read it. Your deal.

You know, I want to have an [i]actual discussion[/i]. Whenever people are asked "What is Beauty" or asked anything, they are often going to give a certain statement or a certain way of looking at it, because we're all conditioned to say certain things; in this case and in this thread it is that "Beauty is subjective." What I was merely attempting to do was break that mold and challenge us to engage ourselves to question it deeper and at a differing level than that. . .In my post prior I implicated that the way modern Western minds work is to endlessly distort the truth of a question such as this. I went directly into my society's vapidness and love of visual beauty. . .and such.

I don't need to sum up what I said in my post. It's there and if you actually know how to read beyond reading, "See Bob run. Look at Bob run. Beauty is subjective. Bob is Beauty," or something or other maybe you can understand something I said there, maybe not; whatever. I guess I won't even post any more if it's that hard to actually you know, engage your mind and consider what I was saying. So go and play your video games or do whatever it is you do and ignore me then. Again. Your deal.

Also, for the record I am not heated when I am typing what I am. That's your own perception of what I am writing. I am calm and collected and simply know that I know what I know and that no one is listening, and only vaguely if at all lol. I don't need a chill pill; I like to move fast and I love to watch dumb apes stare at me in confused surprise. Chill pills are for those who do not want to test the very bounds of what they are. They are good for when one wants to respite, but I rather like to dream open-eyed actualities and I rather like to challenge my mind whenever possible.

[Horendithas]

[COLOR="Indigo"]Copycatalyst I will be direct, you really need to learn to stop insulting everyone who doesn't instantly see things your way and let it go. In other words [I]go and pet spot and chill[/I]. No one wants to have a discussion where you set up the rules from the very beginning and shoot down their perception of how things are. You're never going to get someone to have one of those discussions if you keep implying that they are too stupid to grasp what you are getting at.

Also you may want an in depth discussion but others do not. Accept it and move on. Its not that big of a deal if people want to believe that Beauty is subjective. Arguing with them over it isn't going to change their minds. If anything, like Rach, all they're going to do is ignore you.[/COLOR]

[Fasteriskhead]

[SIZE="1"]Ah, what the hell, I wasn't doing anything tonight anyways. I think I'll just stick to the classics on this without adding much myself. (I've read all the posts so far, but if I tried to respond individually this thing would be even more tl;dr than it already is)

If you think about it, it actually doesn't say much of anything to just say that "beauty is individual" or "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" (I won't try "beauty is subjective" yet, because it's too early to bring up what a subject is). Actually it only says what beauty is [i]not[/i]: it isn't something universally valid, and a beautiful object will not be beautiful in all cases of observation. That's fine, but it doesn't actually try to say what beauty [i]is[/i] in a positive way. Combine the "individuality" of personal taste with the extreme difficulty of doing that kind of positive description, and it's very easy to throw up one's hands, declare that beauty cannot (and even [i]ought[/i] not) be made intelligible, and view any attempt to do so as empty sophistry. I think this is an enormous mistake; if nothing else it means that the experience of beauty has to take its leave of serious examination, and goes off to whittle away time in the realm of sentimentality.

The most influential writer on the subject of beauty in recent times is Kant ("oh god, not Kant" - yeah, yeah, hear me out, there's a reason people still read these guys).He deals with beauty, and more widely the human faculty of the aesthetic, in his Critique of Judgment. There he immediately starts off by making the point that the aesthetic - [i]including[/i] beauty - is whatever is [i]subjectively[/i] added to an experience. Everyone here probably has an idea what the word "subjective" means - when we say something's subjective, we mean to say it's one-sided, true only for a particular observer, and unscientific (this is opposed to "objective," which is the opposite). Taken in that way, Kant only wants to say that aesthetics is inexact and personal - which is exactly the point brought up in the previous paragraph.

The only problem is that that's [i]not[/i] how Kant understands subjectivity, or at least it misses the point. When Kant speaks of something being objective, he means that it's something really present in the objects we experience - were I not to encounter that object, I wouldn't ever find out the objective facts about it. Subjective facts, on the other hand, are in a certain sense [i]always loaded into[/i] any experience we have. They're [i]how[/i] we experience things, rather than [i]what[/i] we experience. This has the strange result that you can actually be [i]more[/i] sure of subjective facts than objective ones, since the subjective is there in ANY possible experience you could have whereas with the objective you have to go chase down the object you're studying. Furthermore, the "subject" is not actually a real [i]thing[/i] for Kant. For us, when we say "subject" we usually mean it as individual people, individual cases ("subjects of an experiment") - Kant doesn't take it this way. "The subject is not a particular thing but an idea." So when he says that beauty is a subjective element, he doesn't mean it's a fact you can discover in a [i]particular object[/i] which is a subject (say, your best friend, or even yourself). It's a fact about experience in general (it's never an obvious thing that someone else may object to my own taste; I only discover this after the fact, experimentally, after a lot of trial and error). And, if beauty is subjective in this way, it also means that it is only connected to objects loosely. There can be no objective [i]reason[/i] to find one thing beautiful and not something else (looking among all the objective facts of it, you never find "beauty" or "ugliness"). This is different from simply saying that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" - it means, positively, that the faculty of taste [i]as a faculty[/i] is going to be present and the same in all rational beings, even if they don't enjoy the same things. There is no common "beauty" or "ugliness" (and no universal beauty which we could recognize if we would just, if you like, clear up our thetans), but there's a common [i]possibility[/i] that one or the other can show up in any experience, and that faculty can be analyzed as a general fact.

Kant's most famous statement about taste and the sense of beauty is that it is the power to judge something beautiful or ugly in a way "devoid of all interest." This is usually misinterpreted to mean that while experiencing something as beautiful we ought to be stoic and dead to all passions. But "interest" here doesn't mean that; it means a project ("business interest") or an inclination. Think of the recent 4chan meme, "this is relevant to my interests," as an example. Kant points out that we can never find anything beautiful [i]for the sake of something else[/i]. We never find anything beautiful because it's useful to us, or because we've been "conditioned" to like certain things (on reflection that may seem likely, but you'll never find it in the experience itself). Silesius: "The rose is without why; it blooms because it blooms." Beauty simply means to experience something as profoundly delightful [i]in itself[/i]. If I suddenly experience the beauty of my daughter, I will never find in the [i]basic experience[/i] anything else behind it (biological necessity, etc.). She's beautiful just because she's beautiful.

There's more to say, though, and for this I hop over to Plato. Plato has a unique understanding of the beautiful which he discusses in a couple of places; my favorite's the Phaedrus. Much of the dialogue complains about the tendency of people to forget the world around them; they ignore what is true about things, and fall back into lesser concerns (they're aware of the truth, but only in a half-awake sort of way). Beauty, though, has a special part to play here. "To beauty alone has the role been allotted to be the most radiant, but also the most enchanting." Plato doesn't mean that "beauty" itself is some object out there in the world, which is the most beautiful among things. Plato doesn't even seem to want to include it among his so-called forms. When we says that beauty is the "most radiant," he means it in the sense that the beautiful [i]shines out[/i]; beauty illuminates the world, and by doing so it can [i]wake us up[/i]. Beauty has the chance of making us remember the true (as the "most enchanting" it also has the danger of luring us back [i]away[/i] from truth, but that's a different question). Plato's point still holds true today, I think, although maybe not the way he meant it. If I am given something truly beautiful - a work of art, a floral arrangement, my daughter (again) - the whole of my experience will be "woken up." Things may seem brighter somehow; I may take heed of things I had never cared about before; I may become, if only for a moment, a truly different person. This is not to give beauty a purpose, a reason, or an "interest," which Kant would never approve. It only means that when I experience the beautiful I notice/remember things - or, really, a whole world - which normally would have remained hidden to me.

tl;dr, I know, but hopefully it's helpful to someone (who knows, maybe there were a lot of people around here just waiting for a good five-minute intro to Kant). It's an interesting question and it's not going to get resolved in a message board thread, no matter how many personal arguments get started. (the basic duty of all serious dialogue, philosophical or otherwise: always try to get the guy on the other side in as strong a position as he can possibly have)[/SIZE]

[Guest Copycatalyst]

Fair enough.

Here's the question.

Let us forget that beauty may be subjective.

Let us try to justify that it is objective.

Also let us seek to go beyond objective and subjective.

Let's ask each other what is beyond objective and subjective.

What is subjective and objective?

Well, the "subject" views an "object" and it says "this object has such and such a quality to it."

So the subject looks and it says, "this is beautiful."

But is the object beautiful even before it is seen by the subject?

As in, are things beautiful, whether or not we say they are?

Also let us consider; what is happening at the exact moment the subject looks and sees an object, before that subject's valuation of it.

There is a moment when we look at things when they are revealed to us as they are.

When we do not call them anything.

Beautiful, ugly, whatever one may call it.

What do we see then?

We see the object as it is.

We see it purely.

If we could do this all the time, without distortion of the object.

What would we see?

Would it in fact be something. . .

Beyond beauty as we conceive of it currently?

To Faster: [b]Thank you.[/b]

[Korey]

besides the philosophical ideals that have been thrown around here. beauty can be summed up in the old addage...."beauty is in the eye of the beholder". corny, yes. true, maybe. but look at the diverse opinions that have been shown here and the way some of them have been shot down. this is one of those questions that have been pondered since the beginning of well the beginning. what is beauty? why is the sky blue? why are we here? what is the meaning of life?

to all members, any question can be considered subjective and can be argued either way, with some exceptions (math concepts, science laws...etc). for instance, if i posed the question, what was the best beatles album of all time, i would get a menagerie of responses voting for album a or b because of personal opinions that said people may have. however, from an analysts' point of view, album a would be the best album because of record sales, musicality, awards...et cetera. however you choose to argue your point, my opinion or by the numbers, remember, there is no true answer to what you are talking about. we will never know how many licks it takes to get to the choclatey center of a tootsie pop because no one knows what constitutes as a lick and what doesn't, and other variables can come into play.

catalyst....can we really see an object as it is. have you ever seen something and found inner beauty? something that can't be seen or felt or touched but we know it's there? that is another question that can be asked of people. what do we see as beauty? outward physical chracteristics or the inner personality traits?

now to my unprofessional medical opinion. beauty is waking up in the morning and it's raining outside, the house is freaking cold because you left the air conditioner on too high and you don't have any milk left over in the fridge because you accidentaly used it all to make dessert the night before and having to resort to toast for breakfast and the phone suddenly rings and when you answer it, your siginificant other calls your name with an affectionate tone to their voice. to state it simply, it's the little things that are beautiful. the major things do account for a lot, but it's the little nuances that keep beauty lasting. let me tell you, some of the most memorable relationships i have had created some of the best memories based on the little things that i've done or experienced.

[Guest Copycatalyst]

Let us propose a logician's cut of two.

On one hand, there is the classical cut.

It looks at the underlying form of objects.

It deals in pieces.

It is decidedly the mindset of many Westerners today.

The second is a romantic cut.

It looks at the outer forms of objects.

It looks at gestalts.

Wholes.

The fact that a motorcycle is made of pieces; screws, wheels, the like.

This can be beautiful.

The fact that a motorcycle has a gestalt appearance.

This can be beautiful.

But what makes one or either beautiful?

And why is one or the either of less of a way to call something beautiful?

Beauty is a heightenment of the senses and all the faculties of the human being; an immense immersement in these, with a conception and dissolution of the separation of "subject" from "object" . . . Beauty is a thing as it is. . .beauty is to be a nowflake.

What is beauty?

It is a word.

What is a word?

It is a symbol.

What is a symbol?

An attempt to show something real?

Is beauty real? Or is it merely a human conception?

Does a star shine and ask itself if it is pretty for doing such?

Is beauty casting out an aura of something real,

but never knowing such?

What is beauty?

Truth is Beauty; Beauty is Truth.

What is Truth?

What is Beauty?

What is beautiful? A flower. A sunset. A tear. Human things? Human perceptions?





What I want to know is.

Explain to me what you mean by "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." How am I supposed to take this phrase?

Is it literally [i]in[/i] there? In that eye? What does this implicate? Does it mean it is merely in what they see? The phrase means nothing to me, because it is so overused.

What is beauty?

And why does it matter?

I know what is beautiful, and I do not even need call it beautiful.

And that makes it more beautiful because I do not name it.

That which I see away from "me" is merely a casting of a reflection of me. It is thus as part of me as all things.

The differences escape.

The moment, and its things, merge.

And in that, I cannot explain.

It is beyond being called anything.

It is.

That is all.

[Korey]

let's see if i can clear this up for you

[quote name='Copycatalyst']
What I want to know is.

Explain to me what you mean by "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." How am I supposed to take this phrase?[/QUOTE]

to put it simply...beauty is what you believe in yourself. period. what you think is beautiful is what is beautiful TO YOU.

[quote name='Copycatalyst]Is it literally [i]in[/i'] there? In that eye? What does this implicate? Does it mean it is merely in what they see? The phrase means nothing to me, because it is so overused.[/quote]

that's why it's a cliche, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder doesn't specifically mean physical characterisitcs. ever heard of the mind's eye in easter cultures?

"I know what is beautiful, and I do not even need call it beautiful." (Got tired of using the HTML Coding) :P.

then why do we define beauty? if we know what is beautiful, how do we decide what is ugly without giving it that description. we know the sky is blue, yet do we not call it the blue sky?

"That which I see away from "me" is merely a casting of a reflection of me. It is thus as part of me as all things."

Which i assume means that you are what people percieve of you right? then aren't these people judging your simply on a superficial scale? because what they see is simply a reflection of you, not the genuine article? can you explain this more to me?

[Guest Copycatalyst]

No, I mean there is no difference between me and what I observe. The barrier of the "self" and the conception of an "other" or "others" is an illusion.

[MissWem]

[quote name='Sesshomarufan']now to my unprofessional medical opinion. beauty is waking up in the morning and it's raining outside, the house is freaking cold because you left the air conditioner on too high and you don't have any milk left over in the fridge because you accidentaly used it all to make dessert the night before and having to resort to toast for breakfast and the phone suddenly rings and when you answer it, your siginificant other calls your name with an affectionate tone to their voice. to state it simply, it's the little things that are beautiful. the major things do account for a lot, but it's the little nuances that keep beauty lasting. let me tell you, some of the most memorable relationships i have had created some of the best memories based on the little things that i've done or experienced.[/QUOTE]

[COLOR="Sienna"][FONT="Arial"]That... that there, I read through virtually every single post and exactly what you have described here means something to me.

To me beauty doesn't have to be an object, it could be an event that moves me in such a way that I feel appreciation. On my best days I can find a lot of things beautiful, from the texture of the concrete road, the flock of birds passing over head, a really nice car and even the fact that a customer isn't even going to look twice at me let alone remember what I look like when I've served them.

But unfortunately, my best days are few and far between. Which is where I think Sesshomarufan;781623's point comes in for me. Seeing my boy friend smile is honestly one of the most beautiful things in the world to me. It's plain awesome.
[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Retribution]

[size=1]Great post, first of all.
[quote name='Fasteriskhead'][SIZE="1"]Beauty simply means to experience something as profoundly delightful [i]in itself[/i]. If I suddenly experience the beauty of my daughter, I will never find in the [i]basic experience[/i] anything else behind it (biological necessity, etc.). She's beautiful just because she's beautiful. [/SIZE][/QUOTE]
But that?s the thing though. Your daughter?s perceived beauty does not arise from a void ? it?s biological necessity. This is a prime example of an evolutionary process working powerfully to bond you to your offspring.

In this vein of thought, I would go on to argue that many, if not all forms of beauty are seen as such because of previous experiences that shape your current ideals of the concept. Newborn infants do not see beauty because they can?t distinguish one form from the other. They have only an inbuilt mechanism that can recognize a crude face and are attached to their mother. Not because she is beautiful, but because it is human instinct to do so. This newborn does not see beauty in a sunset or a rose or charity, but if beauty arose from itself as you suggest, the newborn should be able to acknowledge an object/subject?s beauty.

This newborn child grows into a culture and becomes a member of society, complete with their personal experiences and social norms imprinted onto them. With this comes the perception of beauty. Wherever they live, they are taught to value certain symbols (a rose or Mozart in the west would be prime examples) and their sense of beauty thus grows from this.

But I do acknowledge the fact that we have a heavily complex mind, and because of this, I cannot adequately explain all instances of finding something beautiful. As a general trend, however, I stand by my argument.

[quote name='Copycatalyst'] But is the object beautiful even before it is seen by the subject?[/QUOTE]
Absolutely not, because beauty is assessed and measured within the mind. The object is always an object; we only assign value to it after observation.

[QUOTE]If we could do this all the time, without distortion of the object.

What would we see?[/QUOTE]
Well, we would be dead husks if we could do this all the time. Our mind is what ?distorts? these objects, and if we did not have that distortion, that would mean our mind is not functioning. Certainly you admit you cannot look at an object without ?distorting it?. This is true [i]because that beauty is measured within our mind[/i].[/size]

[Korey]

miss wem i think you've missed my point. i described a situation where everything in the world is gone dank and gloomy and whatnot, so when your significant other calls you or smiles or offers a kind word, it does make you feel good right? what kind of beauty would that be? inner beauty seems to be the answer but, we can never tell what is beautiful about a person on the inside on an absolute scale, because humans are irrational and erratic creatures by nature. we change emotions about as often as we change clothes. i think it's that feeling of happiness or appreciation that creates the beauty. in other words, like i've said in the past three posts. beauty is created by you and only for you. others can influence your views of beauty, but ultimately it's up to you to decide how your beauty "radar" functions.

[Fasteriskhead]

[quote name='Retribution'][size=1]Great post, first of all.[/size][/QUOTE]I'm not sure if this is directed at me or someone else. If me, then, well, thanks!

[quote name='Retribution'][size=1]But that’s the thing though. Your daughter’s perceived beauty does not arise from a void – it’s biological necessity. This is a prime example of an evolutionary process working powerfully to bond you to your offspring.

In this vein of thought, I would go on to argue that many, if not all forms of beauty are seen as such because of previous experiences that shape your current ideals of the concept.
...
But I do acknowledge the fact that we have a heavily complex mind, and because of this, I cannot adequately explain all instances of finding something beautiful. As a general trend, however, I stand by my argument.[/size][/QUOTE]I think you have a point, but it ignores a distinction of Kant's that I brought up just before the bit you quote when I said, "We never find anything beautiful because it's useful to us, or because we've been 'conditioned' to like certain things (on reflection that may seem likely, but you'll never find it in the experience itself)." I would have expanded on this more, except the post was too damn long already. This is the distinction Kant makes between [i]empirical realism[/i] - which is the stance we make when studying objects, when we test them and learn about them through experience - and [i]transcendental idealism[/i] - which is the stance necessary for studying [i]subjective facts[/i], things that have to be true for experience in general. The analysis of beauty, or (more accurately) the conditions for beauty's [i]possibility[/i], falls into the second area.

What that comes out to is this. If I study myself as an [i]object[/i], say by scientific psychology, and I begin to take measure of all the situations in which I find something beautiful, then I may begin to find patterns. I can compare that object to other similar objects (other people) and look for patterns there as well. In the end I may indeed find that the evidence points to my "taste" being conditioned biologically, culturally, etc.. And Kant would have no trouble with this, so long as these studies kept within their limits. However, the results of those kinds of empirical investigation can't say anything about the immediate [i]experience[/i] of beauty. It can't invalidate the point that taste is "devoid of all interest" because even if my reactions are conditioned, that conditioning is only [i]empirically[/i] true, true of myself and other people as [i]objects of experience[/i]. Because the sense of beauty comes from the subject rather than the object, [i]transcendentally[/i] (I'm sorry to drop that word, but there's nothing else that works) I will never find a reason for it.

In order for an experience of something beautiful to happen at all, in order for me to take a thing as beautiful in the first place, I can never encounter reasons in the experience itself. This sounds abstract, but it's actually pretty obvious. Imagine that I look at my daughter and find her beautiful; now imagine that [i]accompanying[/i] that judgment is the thought, "What I sense right now is due to biological necessity." Or, while listening to Bach: "I feel delight at this only because of cultural conditioning." If these remain experiences of beauty at all, I think they end up extremely dissonant ones. The moment the reason is added to the perception [i]itself[/i] (not just retroactively), somehow the experience of beauty crumbles. The point is this: while working scientifically, with people taken as [i]objects[/i], you can explain "taste" however you like. But in order for taste itself to work, I must never find its explanation in the given experience. So basically I agree with your post on the level of objective science, but what I was trying to point out was a fact about perception.


EDIT: I think this addresses Lunox's question as well. I would just add that Kant's interest lies not so much in saying why one person finds something pleasant and another person finds it unpleasant, but rather in how it is that such judgments are possible at all (what has to be sort of "pre-packaged" in all experience in order for me to find something beautiful or ugly?). The former is a question for experimental science, the latter is one for philosophy and metaphysics. The unique problem of this kind of judgment, which is why he wrote a book about it, is that it doesn't involve an object's relation to other objects, its position in time and space, individual facts about it, or even its actual [i]existence[/i]. Neither does it involve any kind of moral imperative. It has to do solely with how we encounter the thing's [i]form[/i], which can be a completely imaginary process. So if you can't fit it under conceptual understanding and you can't fit it under practicality/morality, then it needs its own category.

[Aaryanna]

[COLOR="goldenrod"]So much fuss over a simple phrase, that Beauty is subjective. Personally I think the phrase is used so often since it's a simple way of thinking about a subject that really isn't simple. Beauty, and keep in mind I am not familiar with Kant, to me is not just there, it's something that we perceive and consider to be that way. I see a rose and think it's beautiful. But the rose just is, regardless of what I think of it and someone else will see the same rose and think it's ugly.

In the end whether or not I think it's beautiful or someone else does, is almost meaningless in the sense that it does not affect the roses' existence at all. Or does it? On a more functional level, the rose has aspects that attract insects for pollination. Not that the insect thinks the flower is beautiful, but that aspect of it is something that draws it in. So some form of attraction/beauty is necessary for it's survival.

Saying beauty is subjective to me means that being perceived as beautiful is going to depend upon outside factors that only matter to the person considering it. It's my way of understanding that what I perceive as being beautiful is not the same as someone else since no two people think alike.

It's not some journey to understand the meaning behind why we say something that may or may not be totally illogical. Or to get into the finer details of the entire concept behind what is beauty. But since it places me in the position of saying hey I don't fully understand this concept other than I know I think this is beautiful... the phrase works.

It's also my way and I'm sure many others way of saying, other than a brief comment, going deeper into the meaning of what is beauty does not interest me. Maybe once I've read something by Kant I'll think about it, but now? That simple misunderstood statement works for me. [/COLOR]

[Guest Copycatalyst]

Sigh to Ret. Well, at least you know how to use what they've told you at school well. :D So beauty is in the mind. . .well now we must ask [i]where is it in the mind[/i]? I don't know about you, but you can sit here and tell me "such and such a structure in the mind does such and such and there is beauty" until maybe you're rose-colored and tuft with frustration in your face. . .You still haven't told me what beauty is.

When we say something is beautiful. . .that doesn't make it become beautiful. When we look at something and it is beautiful. . .it [b]is not[/b] a purely subjective experience. There are more than just your Ego being involved here; more than just you, looking at something. Some things look back. It's about interactions. . .not about laid-back observation. . .

Where in the mind is beauty?

Here in America, and Western cultures, we enjoy physical beauty.

And we love to say everything is in the mind, and there's no way it could exist outside the mind.

Other than in our Christianity.

The mind is a parser and a tuner of energies. . .

It's not some machinated husk.

If we saw things as they were, without using schematas in our minds to distort what they were.

If we took away our biases and our preconceptions, though not wholly, but as much as possible.

Then emerges. . .the object, beautiful as it is, and not distorted by our own Ego so much.

This is what lovers do.

The act of love-making is an is-moment. . .it casts aside the [i]subjective tacking-on of data[/i] to data [b]as it already is[/b]. A lover is merely alive in the moment. . .and does not need to call it beautiful. . .and that makes it more beautiful.

When I look at things. . .personally, anyway, I do not label them anything.

I do not put my own conceptions upon them.

I allow them to reveal themselves to me [i]as they are[/i].

And I do not think what they are and what is beautiful about them is "in my mind."

It almost seems like you're becoming a solipsist of beauty, Ret, lol.

A solipsist is a neat theory, but at the same moment, taken to extremes, it becomes narcissistic.

This it he honest to God truth. . .

When most people look at someone, they only decide to see what [i]they[/i] want to see; because you see we teach ourselves here that. . .it's all in the mind, we are born into the world (not from it!), and we're just machines doing something. . .

We're more than machines. And beauty is more than a machine's decision to say "oh this is beautiful."

Let's say this.

Things are beautiful when they have Quality.

But now we must ask what is this Quality. . .

To be honest here in America we value Quantity over Quality, and we call beauty a Quantity; the more breasts she has, the more she looks like an archetype of a woman--the more muscle he has. . .

As much as we love to say we don't find just that beautiful let's not kid ourselves so much.

Beauty to us is often completely visual.

Which is interesting. . .considering if one decides to not employ one's senses in a piece-by-piece manner. . .but rather does so gestaltly or wholly, a [i]greater sensuality[/i] than merely focusing upon one sense emerges. . .And this is what lovers are often feeling. And this is what I am feeling when I step out into the world.

A car drives by; a bird twitters; all these things are happening all around me. . .and they are all beautiful to me, because I do not think beauty is in the mind. I think it is everywhere. It's everywhere because I do not put standards onto what must be beautiful and what isn't. And I don't call beauty subjective. Or in the eye of the beholder, whatever this phrase means. . .

I see things as they are, as it is existing, and I don't ask anything more of it. Then the beauty is all the more amazing.

Beauty is in the mind? So what, a tiger can also see beauty because it has a mind too? What do you even necessarily mean by this? Also you should be careful. The mind and the brain are separate terms for the same thing, which needn't mean the same thing, for a reason.

Your little brain is not all that you are. Consider that it's just utterly [i]impossible[/i] for it to keep all the data it has in it all on its own. There is something more to it all merely than just some brain, which processes the information, and some type of "consciousness" which alters this data, and makes it more. If you can step outside of your own mind in so many ways. . .not wholly but as much as is possible. . .then you'd realize beauty is not necessarily in the mind and that also, there's more to the human being than the brain. . .

The human being is a gestalt thing; as much as it's great to put things into pieces, there's still something more there when you forget there's pieces and merely are what you are and don't cast any distortions onto it, or as few distortions as possible. We assume we're in this body and we're just kind of a husk of awareness in it. . .we assume and we think we have the right to completely devalue the utter beauty that we are. . .by denying blatant truths of how our existence is. . .

I am not against science. I am against it when it becomes your religion.

[Retribution]

[quote name='Fasteriskhead']I'm not sure if this is directed at me or someone else. If me, then, well, thanks![/QUOTE]
[size=1]Certainly you. It was long (typical of you) but interesting as well.

[QUOTE]I think you have a point, but it ignores a distinction of Kant's that I brought up just before the bit you quote when I said, "We never find anything beautiful because it's useful to us, or because we've been 'conditioned' to like certain things (on reflection that may seem likely, but you'll never find it in the experience itself)." I would have expanded on this more, except the post was too damn long already. This is the distinction Kant makes between [i]empirical realism[/i] - which is the stance we make when studying objects, when we test them and learn about them through experience - and [i]transcendental idealism[/i] - which is the stance necessary for studying [i]subjective facts[/i], things that have to be true for experience in general. The analysis of beauty, or (more accurately) the conditions for beauty's [i]possibility[/i], falls into the second area.[/QUOTE]
I can't really argue any further without understanding what "transcendental idealism" entails (I never liked plain old transcendentalism to begin with). However, I think Kant's right when he says we never find something beautiful because of its utility. But I do think that our past experiences and conditioning contribute most heavily to each of our perceptions of beauty.

[QUOTE]The moment the reason is added to the perception [i]itself[/i] (not just retroactively), somehow the experience of beauty crumbles.[/QUOTE]
Not necessarily. I think if the reasoning is first experienced prior to the acknowledgment "this is beautiful" then you are right -- it's cheapened somehow. But if you see your daughter, think "this is beautiful" then realize you think that because you are biologically predisposed, I don't think you are necessarily compelled to then lose the feeling.

[quote name='Copycatalyst']Sigh to Ret. Well, at least you know how to use what they've told you at school well. :D[/QUOTE]
Logic is really all we've got in this world. Sorry to rely so heavily upon it, I just don't really jive with transcendent lines of thought.

[QUOTE]So beauty is in the mind. . .well now we must ask [i]where is it in the mind[/i]? I don't know about you, but you can sit here and tell me "such and such a structure in the mind does such and such and there is beauty" until maybe you're rose-colored and tuft with frustration in your face. . .You still haven't told me what beauty is.[/QUOTE]
Well, I was thinking about this earlier. The human body [i]is[/i] a gestalt machine in that we have this "mind" that arises out of our brain. How odd indeed. But, that doesn't [i]necessarily[/i] mean beauty can't be explained on some level by science.

[QUOTE]When we say something is beautiful. . .that doesn't make it become beautiful. When we look at something and it is beautiful. . .it [b]is not[/b] a purely subjective experience. There are more than just your Ego being involved here; more than just you, looking at something. Some things look back. It's about interactions. . .not about laid-back observation. . .[/QUOTE]
I personally disagree, but we'll never reach consensus on this. I personally think all objects are without definition until we assign it. A winding mountain path with pretty flowers might be beautiful to a hiker, but horrendous and painful to someone who was raped on a similar path. There is nothing beautiful [i]or[/i] horrendous about this path... the path is simply a path.

[QUOTE]Here in America, and Western cultures, we enjoy physical beauty.[/QUOTE]
All humans enjoy physical beauty.

[QUOTE]The mind is a parser and a tuner of energies. . .

It's not some machinated husk.[/QUOTE]
I agree in that the mind is what animates us. It's what gives us autonomy and logic and free thought rather than being slave to instinct as most other animals are.

[QUOTE]If we saw things as they were, without using schematas in our minds to distort what they were.

If we took away our biases and our preconceptions, though not wholly, but as much as possible.[/QUOTE]
But that is what creates beauty. All of the above create this perception of beauty.

[QUOTE]When I look at things. . .personally, anyway, I do not label them anything.[/QUOTE]
Absolutely untrue. No matter how much you want to escape it, you cannot do that without being brain dead. When you see a pillow, you assign it to a group of schema, and whatever it matches up with ("pillow") you perceive it as. If you did not do this, you would be totally unable to walk, to eat, to even think on a concrete level. No matter what you think you're doing, you're not. You're not walking around with no preconceptions, without any labels in your mind. Your subconscious is autonomous to a massive extent.

[QUOTE]A car drives by; a bird twitters; all these things are happening all around me. . .and they are all beautiful to me, because I do not think beauty is in the mind. I think it is everywhere. It's everywhere because I do not put standards onto what must be beautiful and what isn't. And I don't call beauty subjective. Or in the eye of the beholder, whatever this phrase means. . .[/QUOTE]
I hear what you're saying, but I consider this unity. I consider it ultimate harmony. Every law of mathematics and physics we know, and infinitely more we don't, are at work. It's what keeps us alive, from the atoms that bind me together to the normal force that keeps me from falling into the Earth's core. Every step I take is a force vector. The rock I kick is another set of ridiculously complex relations to the ground.

[QUOTE]Beauty is in the mind? So what, a tiger can also see beauty because it has a mind too? What do you even necessarily mean by this? Also you should be careful. The mind and the brain are separate terms for the same thing, which needn't mean the same thing, for a reason.[/QUOTE]
Well, we don't know if a tiger has a "mind" as humans do. Humans have the facility of logic and higher reasoning, whereas a tiger is totally bound by instinct and conditioning. It's within the capability to buck the solely primitive urges within us that we become a higher being... and with that, I think we are able to understand and see much more complex things than tigers. From the brain comes the mind. And humans know almost nothing of the mind at this point.

[QUOTE]Your little brain is not all that you are. Consider that it's just utterly [i]impossible[/i] for it to keep all the data it has in it all on its own. There is something more to it all merely than just some brain, which processes the information, and some type of "consciousness" which alters this data, and makes it more. If you can step outside of your own mind in so many ways. . .not wholly but as much as is possible. . .then you'd realize beauty is not necessarily in the mind and that also, there's more to the human being than the brain. . .[/QUOTE]
Well, at this point everything I'm going to say is mere speculation. But I think the mind is very heavily tied to the brain -- when your brain is damaged, your mind is as well. From within a heavily complex arrangement of synapses and nerve centers comes the mind, but if this 'hardware is damaged, the 'software' can't run.

[QUOTE]I am not against science. I am against it when it becomes your religion.[/QUOTE]
Science is not my religion. Humanism is as close to religion as I'll get at this point.[/size]

[Guest Copycatalyst]

Logic is not all we have in this world. . .I already know what I know so that's what I have, and you have whatever it is you have. Which is apparently a place I used to be a long time ago, and if you keep growing you may reach here. That's all your choice. Such is the [i]beauty[/i] of the human being; as much as it considers itself this or that, it merely becomes the things it sees and observes. It all becomes what it decides to loosen and then grow towards.

The human is a [i]gestalt[/i] thing. What it is does not necessarily lay in the mind; the mind is the sorter of what it is, but it is not what it is. The body and the mind and the "brain" are all interconnected and they are all connected to something greater.

Those animals. . .I'd really ask you to question which side of the cage you are on. I'd like you to also realize that your consciousness, as it is, is an adaptive function of what you are. . .but that all the things around you are aware as you are too, in their own kind of ways. A plant is incredibly aware, for example; and in fact is a symbiote, and without them our entire ecosystem would fall into ruin. Again. . .there is your misconception of objects. I really consider that our consciousness, and the way it has been used throughout our development, was just as insidious and stupidly used as say we love to talk about these animals as being barbarians in comparison to us.

Science is just a modern day mythology; if you think it has facts, then you are kidding yourself. It, however, does give a powerful mindset which I apply to all aspects of my life. And it gives us this technology.

[Retribution]

[quote name='Copycatalyst']Logic is not all we have in this world. . .I already know what I know so that's what I have, and you have whatever it is you have. Which is apparently a place I used to be a long time ago, and if you keep growing you may reach here. That's all your choice.

[...]

I really consider that our consciousness, and the way it has been used throughout our development, was just as insidious and stupidly used as say we love to talk about these animals as being barbarians in comparison to us.[/QUOTE]
[size=1]I find this ironic. You're willing to patronize my knowledge and perceptions, yet criticize me for doing the same to animals. I'm done arguing with you. In the end, you and I operate on different principles -- I on logic, and you on some sort of higher state of being, and I say this cynically. We will never reach a consensus on what beauty is because we see other another's points of view as inferior and ill-informed.[/size]

[Guest Copycatalyst]

I operate on pure reason.

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[quote name='The Boss'][color=darkred][size=1]

This is true [URL="http://a16.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/44/l_4eecd8a79d4993001be56f8cf0866e1f.jpg"]Beauty...[/URL][/color][/size][/QUOTE]

[color=#9933ff][font=lucida calligraphy]No... that's what horror movies are made of.

[URL=http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/57682607/ ] This [/URL] is true beauty.

Although which person in the picture I'm refering to is hard to say.[/color][/font]

[Zen]

[color=darkred][size=1]

Children! My only weakness! Cuteness... too.... powerful! Aaargh!

*head explodes*[/color][/size]

[Korey]

i think that retribution summed it up best... we will never come to a consensus because we all operate on a separate set of standards and thought processes and we all shoot each other's theories down because we think that person A is a complete blithering idiot, just because their methods of reasoning differ from yours.

so can we at leasat agree on this?

everyone has a different opinion of beauty and technically no one person is wrong, because everyone can argue their case to a point. some of us use logic to show our theories on the subject, others tend to use experiences and personal deductions based on no scientific or fact-based medium. sound good?

[Fasteriskhead]

[quote name='Sesshomarufan']so can we at leasat agree on this?

everyone has a different opinion of beauty and technically no one person is wrong, because everyone can argue their case to a point. some of us use logic to show our theories on the subject, others tend to use experiences and personal deductions based on no scientific or fact-based medium. sound good?[/QUOTE]No, I'm not going to agree on that. I think I'm beginning to go broken record here, but at the risk of being a pest, once again: saying that reactions of taste towards a particular object (say, a painting) are going to be different - that is, that those kinds of judgments are not universally the same among everyone - doesn't put a dead stop on the question of beauty. Actually, that's where it first gets interesting. Here's the catch: when we say that not everyone considers the same things beautiful, we already imply (in spite of ourselves) that [i]beauty itself[/i] really is known and understood generally. I don't learn what beauty is by finding every "beautiful" thing and then abstracting what they have in common; the fact that I can experience [i]anything at all[/i] as "beautiful" in the first place means that I already have some kind of understanding of beauty hard-wired into my experience. Again: it's not philosophically interesting [i]what[/i] we find beautiful, only [i]how[/i] (in what way) it happens. This isn't about coming up with "theories" or "personal deductions" or "different opinions" (I would rather that people consider my previous posts a waste of time rather than taking them as offering a "model" or "theory" of beauty to stand alongside others like a museum piece; all they represent is a try at the problem). And, I might add, it definitely isn't about throwing around sanctimonious, insubstantial aphorisms which are basically ungrounded in and unconcerned with the problem as it is given. ("physician, heal thyself" I can hear someone saying, which is fair enough - if you read a lot of philosophy you can still be decent person, but after only a little you're doomed to being insufferable. I like to hope I'm in that first group, but maybe not)

I take the real task here to be just mulling over the brute, unmoving fact that we [i]can and do experience things as beautiful[/i], and that we can't really escape from it. Given that truth, which most of us are so used to that we don't even consider it meaningful to talk about, what can we say? What is beauty [i]like[/i]? Abstract it from whatever particular thing it may be attached to: how can it be described, and how can it be analyzed? How is beauty different from the erotic, or from the admirable? None of these questions have anything to do with whether any particular judgment of beauty will hold up [i]objectively[/i], the issue this thread has been stuck on and which I expect to see at least five more answers to before the thing's finished. Such questions can be discussed, and discussed (I hope) in a clear way, no matter what's going on with the problem of objectivity. Not by me - it takes me hours to write one of these things, and after this I don't think I have another one left - but I think it can be done.

[quote name='Retribution'][size=1]I think if the reasoning is first experienced prior to the acknowledgment "this is beautiful" then you are right -- it's cheapened somehow. But if you see your daughter, think "this is beautiful" then realize you think that because you are biologically predisposed, I don't think you are necessarily compelled to then lose the feeling.[/size][/QUOTE]Good point, that's very possible. I'm still inclined to think that the experience would really change somehow - it would become bittersweet, maybe? or something even milder? - but I also think the sense of delight would continue over in large part. That means that the presence of a reason doesn't totally break down an experience of beauty, it just "dilutes" it somehow. I'm not sure what that means. Give me awhile to think about it, and maybe I'll have a good reply later on?

[Guest Copycatalyst]

Yes--the whole objectivity/ subjectivity side of this needs to be cast aside. We're not considering the question there.

Well , to begin with, how about this. We will do a logician's cut. A logician's cut is just breaking down a concept into pieces so as to make the data easier to grasp. Here we will go for a dichotomic one.

We will say there are two types of Beauty for now. There is [i]natural[/i] beauty. This is the beauty of nature. It is the beauty a tree represents. Or swaying grass. Or a large prairie. Or a large rocky mountain. These and many other things we could name, can be represented in the "beauty of nature."

There is also [i]the beauty of reason[/i]. Or [i]reasoned beauty[/i] we could perhaps say. This is beauty which has to do with man's consciousness, and it involves the beauty of wit, logic, intellect, and to sum up [i]the faculties of the mind[/i]. Reason, man's main adaptive function, and its main means of survival and growth--has the ability to appreciate its own self.

Let us now go further and say that when reasoned beauty manifests itself onto natural beauty, a hybrid type of beauty is born. This is [i]technological beauty[/i]. Technology is by its grade the alteration of the beauty of nature with the beauty of man's reason, and it creates a synthesis and product of man's reason as it is used upon natural beauty--and technology is then born.

Now, these cuts do not really get us any closer at. . .just what is beauty. Thus far Retribution has implicated that beauty lies in the mind; or anyway, the appreciation of beauty happens in the mind. [i]But that does not mean that's where beauty exists![/i] How do we, as Faster was wondering before, even have this faculty of appreciation, this "feeling of beauty" and this "draw" to things which are beautiful?

Some would say what is good is beautiful. For example a good apple is more beautiful than a rotten, bad apple. Beauty is healthy? Beauty is the appearance of the forms of nature. . .as man sees these forms. . .and it is man's recognition of the truth of these objects, and their value, that is appreciated by man's faculty of awareness. It all sounds good on the page. . .but does it sound good to you, out there, reading it, or does it sound like BS?

It is often our conception, in this society anyway, that the young are beautiful and the old are ugly. I mean this generally and not necessarily in specific instances. Which is perhaps a cop out in some ways. To see something as beautiful is to see it at a state of bloomed-ness and full illumination of its form. . .before it begins to fade. That is, if we are merely discussing the faculty of our ability to see the beauty of things from only a visual sensuality. This is to say that when the grass is the greenest. . .or the fruit is the ripest. . .or the man is at his peak of development. . .or the woman. . .this is when they are most full of color, and a seemingly almost "perfect" conception of the forms of what they are meant to be. . .this is when they are most [i]alive[/i]. Our ability to say one thing is more beautiful than another is our ability to intriniscally, merely via our awareness of beauty, and the use of our reason to choose what to be beautiful, understand that something has more worth or is at a level where it becomes greater than anything else that stands in the foreground of our perceptions. . .Beauty is in a sense our awareness honed to one thing, because of our sensual attention being brought to that thing above all things; something which is beautiful, and is the most beautiful, is brought to our attention because what it does to our senses immerses them in a pleasing and immerses them and draws them in more than other things. . .[i]Gestalt beauty[/i], or beauty which is all at once, beautiful, to all our senses, not just the eyes--this is the most immersive grade of beauty.

As life functions it is a system which generates. The seasons come and pass and go. Always, new things are being born, nascently. Always, it is almost a "circle" in a sense; it is endlessly regenerative. That which is beautiful is at a summertime of its own existence. . .in the shine and illumination of the peak of its fashionings of its forms. . .and that beauty in time will fade, and will then, to the human perception of it, it will like light become generated elsewhere; wherever there is the peaked, or the grown-to-the-highest-level-of-its-form, or the most symmetrical, and thus--this is then where beauty goes. It goes wherever life is most bloomed. . .But in this human conception there is an error. It is looking at things about it and it's saying "The beauty here will be gone eventually." It doesn't consider, perhaps, as I said. . .that everything is nascent, that what is seen as beautiful in this sense. . .is merely to look at the appearances, that is what we have been doing this whole time!

Beauty is easy to see when it is revealed to us so obviously in the things that are endlessly born, and die, and inbetween reach some peak of outward appearance. But appearances, as it goes, can often be deceiving. For example a woman may come up to you who has very beautiful appearance, but her inward appearances, which aren't revealed to you until finding them and getting to know her more, may reveal themselves and if negative, and lacking beauty, her outward appearance's beauty will lessen. . .Thus our "awareness of beauty" would be cast elsewhere because on that level we're only considering beauty as a perceptual allotment of awareness, due to the outward appearance of forms or a construement of beauty needing to be at one focused level of our awareness and understanding at all times.

Behind the outward appearance of forms. . .there are the inward appearances of forms. These are manifest and shown to us in how others behave, and in time, by our own use of reason and ascertainment of objects' beauty by our [i]experience[/i]. This experience leads us to grasp the inward beauty of things, and inward beauty, if grasped, is usually of more worth than outward appearances and their beauties.

However. . .the outward and the inward beauties should not be separated. In fact, though it can at times be in contradiction (as in the case of the woman, whose outward beauty did not match her inward), often the inward beauty of an object will end up manifesting itself in its outward appearance, no matter its "ripeness" and "youthfulness." Further, there is something that is beyond just outward and inward appearances. . .

Let us say it is this. It is to see outward and inward beauty simultaneously, with no separation of either, even if they are in contradiction. Once seen as such, a new type of "beauty" is born, beyond the dichotomy of "inward/ outward" which is, as I said, a combination of both. . .let us call it in-and-outward beauty. . .This is a complex task of the use of our reason upon things. . .but it is possible to everyone. It involves a complete destruction of the barriers of "inward" and "outward," "objective" and "subjective," and a [i]synthesis[/i] of both layers of our awareness. . .which in the end completely obliterates the perceptions we cast upon objects and then say of them "this or that is beautiful." And this is to then end up at more or less this. . .that Truth is Beauty, and Beauty is Truth. That in all objects, and in all things, there is Truth, and it is revealed to us by their Beauty. The more we lessen our distortions of objects [i]a posteriori[/i] the more we grasp the [i]a priori[/i] beauty of objects which is, by its truth, the most pure use of reason and the most undistorted use of the function of man that is its main (that of reason and awareness) way of being.



I think that's enough for now.

[Korey]

i'm beginning to see your point sir. and i have my own logician's cut to do if i may.

let's start with beauty as a whole again. we divide it into natural beauty and beauty of reason. with natural beauty we see outward things, like scenery and so forth. but i ask this? is natural beauty limited to the sense of sight? what about the other senses. can we say that a cry of an animal sounds beautiful? i would like to think so. so what i can deduce is that natural beauty is limited to our senses and our senses only. correct?

beauty of reason seems to me coming from a logical standpoint or from emotions. we can like the way a person acts around other people and find their mannerisms and so forth beautiful. so what we see in a person's personality traits as beautiful is considered this"beauty of reason"

so synthesizing these two concepts makes this hybrid "technological beauty" where man's thought processes and physical senses combine into one and make our definition of beauty. am i right so far?

now to move onto logician's cut two

man's sense of beauty comes from his sense of awareness around his surroundings.
let's propose a hypothetical situation.

mr smith grows up in a frigid artic wasteland that offers no change of scenery as far as the eye can see.mr smith travels to the far away land of california and is captivated by the scenery and texture and the "personaity" of his surroundings.

so what i'm trying to say is that if a person grows up with the same repeated scenarios, his sense of awareness seems to dwindle, because his brain has already compiled this information and his senses have experienced being in his tundra and he is dissillusioned with the scenery and it's "Feel". so what i am proposing is that humans are more inclined to see beauty in the newer, more life filled areas that they are not accustomed to because they haven't experienced this area before and the need time to assilmilate this area's beauty.

wow whoa wee wha! what a serious debate. i need time to rest my noggin.

[Retribution]

[quote name='Fasteriskhead']Good point, that's very possible. I'm still inclined to think that the experience would really change somehow - it would become bittersweet, maybe? or something even milder? - but I also think the sense of delight would continue over in large part. That means that the presence of a reason doesn't totally break down an experience of beauty, it just "dilutes" it somehow. I'm not sure what that means. Give me awhile to think about it, and maybe I'll have a good reply later on?[/QUOTE]
[size=1]Perhaps. But imagine you are at a funeral where someone's brother died and the family is absolutely grief stricken. Telling them "You're only sad because of an evolutionary device to keep the family unit together, and sudden loss is painful for humans" [i]will not[/i] allay their extreme sadness in the least. The emotion is still raw and uncontrolled by your logic. It's the same thing with an optical illusion (although on a more literal level) -- you can [i]know[/i] you're being fooled and that what you're seeing isn't true, but you cannot "turn off" what you are seeing. If that makes any sense.

Mitch -- for clarity, my position is that beauty does not exist in the world, but in our minds. I think it's a calculated and profoundly complicated process, but a technical one nonetheless. Just because we can't easily perceive it at this moment doesn't give us the right to relegate the mind's perception of beauty as something deeper than chem/bio processes.[/size]