Beauty: Objective or Subjective?

[Ixtab]

Is beauty subjective or objective?

Beauty is the Absolute, that is to say, THOUGHT, or the UNIVERSAL, appearing in the form of immediacy. When the rational mind perceives the Absolute shining through a thing, only then may that thing be called "beautiful".

Particularity, contingency, whimsicalness cannot therefore find any place in art. Art must depict the essential, the universal, the rational interests of mankind--the family, love, the State, society, morality, and so forth.

[Excorcism]

One thing I remember hearing is how people tend to find beauty in whatever is assymmetrical. Of course there is more to it than that. I would refer here to Nietzsche's notion of the Apollinian and Dyonisian, but I'd rather not.

[Jim West]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Unfortunately, some eyes are more blind than others.

[Ixtab]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.Evidence?

Unfortunately, some eyes are more blind than others.Beauty is the Absolute in the guise of immediacy.

[jcs]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Unfortunately, some eyes are more blind than others.
The subject must perceive the beautiful, its object. But the subject does not define the beautiful; he merely stands in awe.

[Jim West]

Neither beauty nor ugliness can exist without an intellilgent consciousness to behold it. Therefore, beauty is merely a standard of measurement, one which exists along a man-made continuum stretching between the desirable and the exalted and the repulsive and base. As a result, one need merely subtract the conscious perception of beauty from the equation, and then the very concept of beauty itself ceases to exist.

[Ixtab]

Neither beauty nor ugliness can exist without an intellilgent consciousness to behold it.It is merely essential that the beautiful or ugly object be sensuous. The same is true of every existing thing whatsoever. The colour red is an idea of the human mind, plurality is an idea of the human mind, existence itself is an idea of the human mind. Yet all of these things, like beauty, have a foundation in reality.

Therefore, beauty is merely a standard of measurement, one which exists along a man-made continuum stretching between the desirable and the exalted and the repulsive and base.I disagree. Beauty contains the Notion before it has been converted into objectivity and plurality. It is infinite, free and self-determined, and logically must exclude whatever is in pure externality and contingency, whatever that cannot be shown as issuing out of and determined by its innermost unity; for these do not show the immediacy, which has to appear in manifestation.

As a result, one need merely subtract the conscious perception of beauty from the equation, and then the very concept of beauty itself ceases to exist.Consciousness is an attribute of all perceived objects, and exists independently of the human mind.

[Ahknaton]

Beauty is the Absolute, that is to say, THOUGHT, or the UNIVERSAL, appearing in the form of immediacy. When the rational mind perceives the Absolute shining through a thing, only then may that thing be called "beautiful".

Particularity, contingency, whimsicalness cannot therefore find any place in art. Art must depict the essential, the universal, the rational interests of mankind--the family, love, the State, society, morality, and so forth.
I agree.

Does the notion of absolute beauty conflict with the idea of preserving the idiosyncratic uniqueness of a particular culture, with its own architectural forms, aesthetic principles and great works of art?

Surely if beauty is an absolute then all higher civilisations will converge on the same set of forms, and exchanging of ideas between them can only elevate parallel civilisations (equal in their cultural achievements) towards higher and higher forms of art?

Is Western civilisation worth preserving because of its unique (arbitrary) character, or because it is objectively the highest pinnacle of human achievement, that comes closest to manifesting aesthetic absolutes of beauty in its cultural artifacts?

[Slavic Enforcer]

A women that's healthy is beautiful.

[Jim West]

All that is, exists now; and all that ever will be lies without our grasp today. For instance, primitive man was once surrounding by radio waves, waves capable of carryng his voice though the cyrstal air all around him. Ane yet, for centuries he remained unware of this suble, hidden reality surrouning him. In short, the reality of was always there - yet it was merely men's lacking of it that kept him from knowing agout it. Likewise, there are fanstastic realities in the air about us today, merely waiting for us reach out and discover them,if only we know too. W can build our own Orania now, ands srpread our fertile a communities across this fertile land. Let us unite towards that futre.

[albion]

"Beauty is Truth, truth is beauty, -that is all ye know on earth and all ye need to know."
-John Keats

[Helios Panoptes]

I agree.

Does the notion of absolute beauty conflict with the idea of preserving the idiosyncratic uniqueness of a particular culture, with its own architectural forms, aesthetic principles and great works of art?

Yes, it does. If a culture is lowly, we needn't preserve it.

Surely if beauty is an absolute then all higher civilisations will converge on the same set of forms, and exchanging of ideas between them can only elevate parallel civilisations (equal in their cultural achievements) towards higher and higher forms of art?

They will all converge on Beauty, but may(probably will) manifest it differently. The question for me is, should we take a syncretistic approach to the higher cultures or should strive to keep them separate, so as to maintain their particular manifestations of the Form? My answer is a moderate one. We should avoid a monoculture, which is likely to stagnate, but allow for cross-pollination between higher cultures.

Is Western civilisation worth preserving because of its unique (arbitrary) character, or because it is objectively the highest pinnacle of human achievement, that comes closest to manifesting aesthetic absolutes of beauty in its cultural artifacts?

It is the latter. I, for instance, do not wish to preserve the unique character of the sub-saharan peoples. The very acknowledgement of the Absolute obliterates the idea of preserving arbitrary character which strays from it.

[Banat]

Evidence?

There was a similar thread before the erase. I remember myself making a subtle distinction between beauty and atractiveness, and claiming that it's the latter one that's subjective.

[Die]

Bregowald:-Consciousness is an attribute of all perceived objects, and exists independently of the human mind.

Evidence?

[Jogminas]

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder," says Jim West (who comparitively destroys doppelganger James Bond in every regard) Bregowald requests "Evidence".

How can you request evidence affirming or disaffirming an intangible concept?

The Chinese used to bind the feet of their women as a mark of status and beauty. Some people are attracted to women with the physiques of beanbag chairs. Some people get off on amputees. Some people are necropheliacs. Some are pedopheliacs. Leaving off the hyper-philosophy for a moment, it cannot be denied that different people attribute beauty to things others may find offensive. In light of this, how can beauty be considered anything but subjective?

[Ahknaton]

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder," says Jim West (who comparitively destroys doppelganger James Bond in every regard) Bregowald requests "Evidence".

How can you request evidence affirming or disaffirming an intangible concept?

The Chinese used to bind the feet of their women as a mark of status and beauty. Some people are attracted to women with the physiques of beanbag chairs. Some people get off on amputees. Some people are necropheliacs. Some are pedopheliacs. Leaving off the hyper-philosophy for a moment, it cannot be denied that different people attribute beauty to things others may find offensive. In light of this, how can beauty be considered anything but subjective?
Since sexual attraction serves a biological function - selection of a healthy mate, it can't be 100% subjective (although it may vary from individual to individual) since biological fitness is not a wholly subjective quality (if it is at all). In extreme cases some individuals are attracted to obviously unhealthy members of the opposite sex e.g. grossly obese women, but shouldn't this simply be called a pathology? Some individuals suffer from visual and auditory hallucinations and see or hear things that aren't there, that doesn't mean there is no such thing as objective material reality, only that they are incapable of perceiving it correctly. Likewise, an extreme fat-fetishist (IMO) is incapable of a healthy, normal perception of beauty - "healthy" being defined as correctly perceiving physical attributes that will produce healthy offspring as a result of mating with the individual.

Quite apart from sexual attractiveness, which obviously has a subjective element, there are more abstract concepts of aesthetics that would seem to transcend the subject. For example, The Golden Ratio. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio)

If the concept of beauty is applied to music, certain notes played in harmony have an objectively beautiful quality. For example a note played with another note one octave higher (i.e. exactly twice the frequency) will sound better than a note played with another, say 1.9786 times the frequency.

[Banat]

...how can beauty be considered anything but subjective?

I think I'm right when when pointing out the subtle difference between beauty and attractiveness. We often confuse the beautiful with something we are attracted to. The ideal beauty is objective and it has its separate existence: it doesn't depend on whether there is or there is not anyone to appreciate it. Recognizing beauty is a gift and the fact that so many people use the term without having the idea what they are talking about doesn't make it less objective. I think I might be right on this one.

[Jogminas]

I do not distinguish beauty in terms of health as you define it, Ahkenaton. If a cultural perception of beauty differs to the extent that it is offensive to another culture's, what measure objectivity can be applied then? In some aristocratic European societies during the middle centuries, women with full figures were considered the highest representations of beauty. If breeding with these women who were rotund in comparision with the current standards of beauty was believed to produce full figured children, would the propagation of this bulkier stock be considered "healthy" or would the entire culture be pathologically sick?

[Ahknaton]

If breeding with these women who were rotund in comparision with the current standards of beauty was believed to produce full figured children, would the propagation of this bulkier stock be considered "healthy" or would the entire culture be pathologically sick?It's not an all-or-nothing proposition. There is a subjective (and cultural) element to beauty ideals, but they all fall within a certain healthy range. Show me a culture where manifestly unhealthy traits (e.g. severe obesity, malnutrition, or evidence of disease such as massive pustulant boils) are considered attractive? If there is such a culture, I would say that it could justifiably be called pathological.

I wonder if the difference between sexual selection (which can lead to ridiculous seeminlgy maladaptive traits like peacock feathers) and ecological selection could be likened to subjective (beauty as conformance to a social ideal) versus objective (beauty as an indicator of functional utility) sexual attraction?

[Jogminas]

Beauty is "the quality that gives pleasure to the mind or senses..."

Attractiveness is the quality of being "pleasing to the eye or mind."

I see little need to mark a distinction between the terms. I feel the same way about the juxtaposition of "freedom" and "liberty". I believe they can be used interchangably and see no reason to subject every other term with multiple interperetations to semantical analysis.

[Jogminas]

It's not an all-or-nothing proposition. There is a subjective (and cultural) element to beauty ideals, but they all fall within a certain healthy range. Show me a culture where manifestly unhealthy traits (e.g. severe obesity, malnutrition, or evidence of disease such as massive pustulant boils) are considered attractive? If there is such a culture, I would say that it could justifiably be called pathological.

I will agree with you there Ahknaton.

As for Banat...

Beauty is "the quality that gives pleasure to the mind or senses..."

Attractiveness is the quality of being "pleasing to the eye or mind."

I see little need to mark a distinction between the terms. I feel the same way about the juxtaposition of "freedom" and "liberty". I believe they can be used interchangably and see no reason to subject every other term with multiple interperetations to semantical analysis.

[Banat]

Beauty is "the quality that gives pleasure to the mind or senses..."

Attractiveness is the quality of being "pleasing to the eye or mind."

I see little need to mark a distinction between the terms. I feel the same way about the juxtaposition of "freedom" and "liberty". I believe they can be used interchangably and see no reason to subject every other term with multiple interperetations to semantical analysis.

No.

We can argue about the very meanings of the words and go into semantic obscureness, but the very idea of beauty was first recognized and shaped into a word by those who saw it, recognized it and felt it, and were able to differ it from mere attractiveness. Recognizing beauty is a spiritual experience and of a different kind than experiencing attractiveness. Only those who don't know what beauty is, use the terms interchangeably.

One can be attracted to the beautiful, but he doesn't need to. The same, the attractive can be attractive or likeable without being beautiful. In colloquial speech we often use the terms 'beauty' and 'beautiful' to describe what we are fond of, or attracted to, there's no doubt to that. But here, we discuss beauty in its most idealistic way.

[Jogminas]

We can argue about the very meanings of the words and go into semantic obscureness, but the very idea of beauty was first recognized and shaped into a word by those who saw it, recognized it and felt it, and were able to differ it from mere attractiveness. Recognizing beauty is a spiritual experience and of a different kind than experiencing attractiveness. Only those who don't know what beauty is, use the terms interchangeably.

Would you be so gracious, in that case, as to enlighten me by exemplifying "what beauty is"?

[Banat]

Would you be so gracious, in that case, as to enlighten me by exemplifying "what beauty is"?

I am sorry if I sounded pompous or arrogant.

It's not about "enlightening"; I'm sure you already have a grasp what beauty is, as I might have, but rather want to see a correct and precise definition of it. Unfortunately, we can play with words and try to explain it as 'perfection in harmony' and develop that idea, but just as with the ideas of freedom, God, number, we won't come up with clear definitions. If there are any at all, I'm not aware of them. My point was that the beautiful was always recognized as such, and hence is objective.

To transfer my point to the field where the idea of beauty is most often discussed: the women. Just try to think about those women that were less beautiful than some, which was accepted and recognized by everyone, but again more attractive. This is not a rare example. Or the situations when you yourself were attracted to a woman to the point of madness, while at the same time not considering her as exceptionally beautiful. We are often attracted by beauty, but not only beauty is attractive.