Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[popeye1945]

Pattern - chaser

The process is what you are talking about, not the structure and/or the constitution of the art object. The artist/painter doesn't just throw paint at the canvass and hope for something beautiful comes from the collision, there are principles to the construction of the beautiful. There is a relationship between the subject and object, the subject is not the whole game. The object is the fuel for the mind, the subject's reaction is his experience and his rising sentiments of whether the object is beautiful or not.

[Pattern-chaser]

Pattern - chaser

The process is what you are talking about, not the structure and/or the constitution of the art object. The artist/painter doesn't just throw paint at the canvass and hope for something beautiful comes from the collision, there are principles to the construction of the beautiful. There is a relationship between the subject and object, the subject is not the whole game. The object is the fuel for the mind, the subject's reaction is his experience and his rising sentiments of whether the object is beautiful or not.

There are principles to the implementation, but not to the "construction" or creation of beauty. You can learn how to paint better, with oils or watercolour, but you can't learn to create beauty. That comes from within.

[popeye1945]

Pattern - chaser

The process is what you are talking about, not the structure and/or the constitution of the art object. The artist/painter doesn't just throw paint at the canvass and hope for something beautiful comes from the collision, there are principles to the construction of the beautiful. There is a relationship between the subject and object, the subject is not the whole game. The object is the fuel for the mind, the subject's reaction is his experience and his rising sentiments of whether the object is beautiful or not.

There are principles to the implementation, but not to the "construction" or creation of beauty. You can learn how to paint better, with oils or watercolor, but you can't learn to create beauty. That comes from within.

Well, I would not deny that it comes from within, but, if it were that simple an artist would not spend years learning his craft, anyone off the street could, in your belief, create a beautiful painting. There are some things innate to one's constitution as potential, whereas others perhaps are not so blessed. There are skills and knowledge to be learned in one's quest to master a discipline. As I stated in another post, the further an object/organism is distanced from the beautiful the closer to that object/organism is to non-existence. Art is a celebration of being in general, and quality most definitely plays a role in any manifestation of beauty.

[Pattern-chaser]

Pattern - chaser

The process is what you are talking about, not the structure and/or the constitution of the art object. The artist/painter doesn't just throw paint at the canvass and hope for something beautiful comes from the collision, there are principles to the construction of the beautiful. There is a relationship between the subject and object, the subject is not the whole game. The object is the fuel for the mind, the subject's reaction is his experience and his rising sentiments of whether the object is beautiful or not.

There are principles to the implementation, but not to the "construction" or creation of beauty. You can learn how to paint better, with oils or watercolor, but you can't learn to create beauty. That comes from within.

Well, I would not deny that it comes from within, but, if it were that simple an artist would not spend years learning his craft, anyone off the street could, in your belief, create a beautiful painting.

Implementation can be learned/taught and (maybe) improved; inspiration can't.

[popeye1945]

Pattern - chaser

The process is what you are talking about, not the structure and/or the constitution of the art object. The artist/painter doesn't just throw paint at the canvass and hope for something beautiful comes from the collision, there are principles to the construction of the beautiful. There is a relationship between the subject and object, the subject is not the whole game. The object is the fuel for the mind, the subject's reaction is his experience and his rising sentiments of whether the object is beautiful or not.

There are principles to the implementation, but not to the "construction" or creation of beauty. You can learn how to paint better, with oils or watercolor, but you can't learn to create beauty. That comes from within.

Well, I would not deny that it comes from within, but, if it were that simple an artist would not spend years learning his craft, anyone off the street could, in your belief, create a beautiful painting.

Implementation can be learned/taught and (maybe) improved; inspiration can't.

Agreed, there never was an argument about that.

[popeye1945]

The quality of the object or organism is most definitely the elemental source of the quality of beauty, as all objects are for a conscious subject. An object, or organism as object, is subject to subjective consciousness which may be faulty/defective, and which as a result may find the beautiful ugly or the ugly beautiful, for biology is the measure and the meaning of all things. Reality is the effect upon biology of the world as object/objects as a biological readout, biological reactions are what we call apparent reality, never experiencing the source, but the effects of the source/sources on our subject bodily consciousness.

[Sculptor1]

Certainly not all beauty is subjective. Opposite sexes have evolutionary biases towards going after each other and it is ingrained in peoples and animals biology. Another type of objective beauty would be art that reflects a part of reality that people would find mesmerizing and natural (Mountains, sunrise, waterfalls, space). Not all beauty is objective though, seeing your child speak his first word or seeing someone happy who you care about can be beautiful to you but not somebody else. So beauty has both objective quality's and subjective quality's.
Definition for beauty: a combination of qualities, such as shape, color, or form, that pleases the aesthetic senses, especially the sight.
I do not think that is quite a good enough definition for beauty though. If I had to define beauty I would say something more along these lines: Something that leaves reverence, awe or admiration to a person. Quality's of beauty are determined by the individual and past experiences but can be shared person to person and are not always subjective.
What do you think beauty is?

Beauty like all value judgements are subjective.
Just because one person can agree with another does not make the judgement objective, it just means we can agree.
It is my view that whilst two people can agree to nominate a thing they both feel is beautiful , it is not possible for them to agree upon the depth of beauty in all things. Since no teo people could agree fully on the level of beauty of all things, that does in fact mean that they have different and therefore personal opinions about what beauty is.

[popeye1945]

Certainly not all beauty is subjective. Opposite sexes have evolutionary biases towards going after each other and it is ingrained in peoples and animals biology. Another type of objective beauty would be art that reflects a part of reality that people would find mesmerizing and natural (Mountains, sunrise, waterfalls, space). Not all beauty is objective though, seeing your child speak his first word or seeing someone happy who you care about can be beautiful to you but not somebody else. So beauty has both objective quality's and subjective quality's.
Definition for beauty: a combination of qualities, such as shape, color, or form, that pleases the aesthetic senses, especially the sight.
I do not think that is quite a good enough definition for beauty though. If I had to define beauty I would say something more along these lines: Something that leaves reverence, awe or admiration to a person. Quality's of beauty are determined by the individual and past experiences but can be shared person to person and are not always subjective.
What do you think beauty is?

Beauty, like all value judgments, are subjective.
Just because one person can agree with another does not make the judgement objective, it just means we can agree.
It is my view that whilst two people can agree to nominate a thing they both feel is beautiful, it is not possible for them to agree upon the depth of beauty in all things. Since no two people could agree fully on the level of beauty of all things, that does in fact mean that they have different and therefore personal opinions about what beauty is.

As I stated, biology is the measure and meaning of all things, but, subjective judgment is not infallible and, in many instances, the collective subjective of our common biology increases the odds of a correct judgment. Nevertheless, even the collective subjective is not infallible. Art and the judgment of its beauty or lack thereof is an experience dependent upon the source of that experience, thus, assuming healthy biological subjects all around, the constitution of a given object most true to its species/type is the fuel for the judgment of its beauty. Subject and object stand or fall together, take away the proper constitution of the species/type of object and only a negatively altered biology would find the beauty of said object to be ugly or a monstrosity, there tends to be a consistency across the board of healthy biological subjects in their sensing and judgments.

[Lagayascienza]

What is beauty?[/b/

Well, that would be in the eye of the beholder. It's entirely subjective and therefore indefinable. It's like morality. These is no truth-value to aesthetic and moral assertions. Such assertions are not "truth apt", as they say. They are expressions of emotion and not of objective facts. That doesn't mean that our aesthetic and moral values are not important. It just means we can't prove that ours are right.

[popeye1945]

What is beauty?[/b/

Well, that would be in the eye of the beholder. It's entirely subjective and therefore indefinable. It's like morality. These is no truth-value to aesthetic and moral assertions. Such assertions are not "truth apt", as they say. They are expressions of emotion and not of objective facts. That doesn't mean that our aesthetic and moral values are not important. It just means we can't prove that ours are right.

Biology is the measure and meaning of all things, and of course, this is subjective consciousness. Consciousness is individual, but we are a collective, as a species, and have a collective consciousness. Beauty speaks to the order of being human, as all beings are ordered whether animate or inanimate. Only life is consciousness as far as we know, through life's experiences comes knowledge, and meanings, which consciousness then bestows/attributes upon a meaningless world. The further an object or organism is from the beauty of its species structure and form, the closer it is to non-existence, to being a monstrosity, and evolutionary failure, and to perishing through natural selection's harsh judgment. A person who finds an object or organism that is close to perfection in the structure and form of its species of object or organism of necessity would be either dishonest or unfit in structure and form itself. Beauty is the admiration of structure and form. Beauty is being healthy relative to its environmental context, fit in degrees to its survival, and for human consciousness its function. Beauty is not a whimsical thing; it is a healthy specimen of its kind, and therefore fit to survive.

[FrankSophia]

An echo of the unity within diversity.

[popeye1945]

An echo of the unity within diversity.

Frank,

Interesting!! or the ordering of diversity?

[FrankSophia]

Interesting!! or the ordering of diversity?

Order is a function of unity, things are working together instead of against each other.

Yet, order doesn't cover examples such as love... here the experience of other is based on chemical responses rather than external stimuli.

[popeye1945]

Unity is just another word for order, all is energy, and matter is an energy form, but organized by unmanifest energies that bond it together, or as an innate part of matters manifestation, just playing it by ear here! Love is not matter, it is something altering one's state of being and in order to do that it must be manifested as matter/ person or object. The chemical response is dependent upon a manifest source of stimulation, it is a reaction to something/ constituted of matter and or the behaviors of that matter subject or object. It is the physical world playing a melody upon the organism, to the tune of apparent reality. That which is not ordered, is not manifested energy is not an object, love is the state of being at a particular time understood to be outside one's self. Pleasure, desire and fulfillment. Biology does not act, biology reacts, we are all reactive organisms, and as such our outside world is cause to us, one's love interests are cause to our changing chemistry our change biological state.

[FrankSophia]

Unity is just another word for order, all is energy

When I say unity I mean the same as Plotinus' henosis...

The same is true when I use similar terms like oneness, union, advaita, fana, te, nirvana, etc...

Whether pure potentiality or its manifest expression all is energy, yes.

The standard model accurately predicts how that energy ripples.

Shivoham.