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

[JackDaydream]

I have been reading, 'Theories of Art and Beauty' (ed Robert Wilkinson, in which he explores the aesthetic aspects of experience. One aspect of this is Edmund Burke' s idea of the beautiful and the sublime, which he sees as being comparable. He speaks of how beauty is often seen as an intrinsic quality whereas the sublime, as the pleasure gained from it is important too as an aspect of aesthetic appreciation.

Thinking about this in relation to personal taste in the arts and other aspects of aesthetic experience, I am wondering how the variations of both the beautiful and the sublime may contribute to subjective aspects of aesthetics and how this balances against objective aspects. In particular, tastes in music and art may be based on what one becomes acquainted with in early life. For example, I think that my dislike of classical music is because my early experiences were rock and pop.

Emotions are likely to be significant in the experience of the sublime. Certain art or music may give pleasure as well as the environment and the erotic. In certain situations aesthetics may have a healing quality and certain aspects of aesthetics may be detrimental to well being. For example, I live in an urban area and sometimes forget to pay attention to nature.

However, certain objective ideas of beauty and the sublime can be rigid and exclusive. I have a definite gothic side, including gothic and metal music and gothic fantasy fiction. I see it in relation to my own awareness of the shadow, as spoken of by Jung. I have come across people who think that it is dangerous to explore the dark too much and believe that certain music is not good to listen to. I have my days where I listen to goth, metal and emo, but more upbeat music at other times. It is about the right balance. It is also the balance between emotions of despair and ecstasy and the many intermediates in between.

So, I am asking you about how important aesthetics, not simply in art but also in daily life, is to you. Science is extremely helpful for explanations but there is also the appreciation and science does incorporate aesthetics and it is not simply the domain of the arts. Also, what are your thoughts and feelings on the idea of the distinction between the beautiful and the sublime?

[JackDaydream]

The issues which I raise about ideas of beauty are partly based on the nature of sensory perception. Wittgenstein said, ' You might think that Aesthetics is a science telling us what's beautiful- almost too ridiculous for words. I suppose it might include also what coffee tastes well'.
Personally, I find this quote relevant for thinking about subjective, objective and intersubjective aspects of aesthetics, especially in relation to sensory experiences. I don't know if anyone here has any thoughts on the sensory aspects in relation to aesthetics?

[The Beast]

Interesting Jack. Is the sublime a cadence of the intellect or an emotional rapture or both? Perhaps a spherical spectrum of variables or the crescendo of meaningful moments. What do we exert to achieve the sublime? Is it uniqueness? How do we understand it? Is it the sublime cadence of the intellect or an emotional rapture or both.

[JackDaydream]

Interesting Jack. Is the sublime a cadence of the intellect or an emotional rapture or both? Perhaps a spherical spectrum of variables or the crescendo of meaningful moments. What do we exert to achieve the sublime? Is it uniqueness? How do we understand it? Is it the sublime cadence of the intellect or an emotional rapture or both.

I think that the idea of the sublime refers to both the intellectual and emotional aspects of appreciation. The idea of rapture is important because both it is possible to be moved through aesthetic appreciation into peak experiences. The psychoanalytic aspects of this are important and it even includes someone being in love. Winnicott speaks of transitional objects as symbolic and Bion speaks of transformational experiences.

Also, in artistic creation there is both the transformational experience of the creator as well as its communication to an audience and the experience of transformation of the experience of the audience. For example, think of the states of mind of a person seeing a Van Gogh painting or of someone hearing a powerful sound song.

[Pattern-chaser]

So, I am asking you about how important aesthetics, not simply in art but also in daily life, is to you. Science is extremely helpful for explanations but there is also the appreciation and science does incorporate aesthetics and it is not simply the domain of the arts. Also, what are your thoughts and feelings on the idea of the distinction between the beautiful and the sublime?

You make mention of "daily life". Here, in a philosophy forum, we are constantly considering science in some way or other. But science rarely, if ever, features in "daily life". We live in the imaginary and illusory (?) world of human culture, where aesthetics, and all kinds of other monsters, live. We live for football, a Libertarian President, Kim Kardashian, and Ru Paul's Drag Race. Science plays no prominent or significant role.

Because science is so often mentioned in philosophy forums, I think we can sometimes get an exaggerated sense of its importance to "daily life".

But back to your topic: I'm not sure of the difference between beauty and the sublime. Both are terms that are generally associated with art, and stuff like that, but I'm not sure if they do differ, and if they do, how.

[JackDaydream]

So, I am asking you about how important aesthetics, not simply in art but also in daily life, is to you. Science is extremely helpful for explanations but there is also the appreciation and science does incorporate aesthetics and it is not simply the domain of the arts. Also, what are your thoughts and feelings on the idea of the distinction between the beautiful and the sublime?

You make mention of "daily life". Here, in a philosophy forum, we are constantly considering science in some way or other. But science rarely, if ever, features in "daily life". We live in the imaginary and illusory (?) world of human culture, where aesthetics, and all kinds of other monsters, live. We live for football, a Libertarian President, Kim Kardashian, and Ru Paul's Drag Race. Science plays no prominent or significant role.

Because science is so often mentioned in philosophy forums, I think we can sometimes get an exaggerated sense of its importance to "daily life".

But back to your topic: I'm not sure of the difference between beauty and the sublime. Both are terms that are generally associated with art, and stuff like that, but I'm not sure if they do differ, and if they do, how.

When I wrote the title for this I thought that it may seem a bit off beat on the forum to speak of life as opposed to science. However, that is strange in a way because life is what we lead daily. I don't think that people in general think about science in the way that people do here. So, it does lead me to think that since using forums I, like others, have started to become accustomed to seeing science as if it is on a pedestal of 'truth' whereas I come from an arts based background not a scientific one. Also, I find that if I start a thread in the arts section it rarely gets much response and, funnily enough, the couple I wrote on physics got a lot of responses, even though I only studied physics until I was 14, when I chose options. It does seem that philosophy is starting to almost equate science with 'truth'.

On the idea of the beautiful and sublime it would seem that there is an overlap of meaning to some extent. However, the distinction may come down to the beautiful as being some quality in its own right, whereas the sublime includes more of a subjective aspect because it is based on personal experience. This does include the sensory aspects of pleasure which may have a certain amount of shared, but not absolute basis. For example, most people like chocolate but not everyone likes cabbage. So, it is about how much taste is objective or subjective. However, there are shared cultural meanings of aesthetic taste. For example, there is the whole idea of the avant garde which forms art appreciation which may override sensory pleasure. Similarly, music can be an acquired taste in relation to values, ranging from those associated with cultural values, as in opera, or the countercultural ones, such as punk. The development of subjective tastes have an intersubjective element which may be learned as opposed to being merely about physical pleasure.

[Pattern-chaser]

On the idea of the beautiful and sublime it would seem that there is an overlap of meaning to some extent...

Yes, I think the two are quite closely linked. So I will fall back to your topic title once more: How Important is Aesthetics in Life?

Aesthetics noun the formal study of the principles of art and beauty.

As a formal discipline — a part of philosophy, I believe — I don't think aesthetics plays any significant role in our lives. More informally, where it might describe art and beauty more than their "formal study", I think it plays a major role. We admire and enjoy art and beauty in any guise we find it in. We are overwhelmed by the beauty of a sunset, a real one, or one painted by Turner. A walk in the trees has benefits to our 'mental health', we are told, and this is down, at least in part, to aesthetics, I think.

If we also consider that many of us find beauty in music, and all the other aspects of our culture, it is clear that aesthetics plays an important, perhaps indispensable, role in all of our lives.

[d3r31nz1g3]

I will quote many of the bodybuilders of the internet:

"Dat aesthetic lyfe, bro."

[JackDaydream]

I will quote many of the bodybuilders of the internet:

"Dat aesthetic lyfe, bro."

An interesting remark, regarding bodybuilders and selfies which dominate the internet, especially in a narcissistic culture of ideals about the 'perfect body'.

[JackDaydream]

On the idea of the beautiful and sublime it would seem that there is an overlap of meaning to some extent...

Yes, I think the two are quite closely linked. So I will fall back to your topic title once more: How Important is Aesthetics in Life?

Aesthetics noun the formal study of the principles of art and beauty.

As a formal discipline — a part of philosophy, I believe — I don't think aesthetics plays any significant role in our lives. More informally, where it might describe art and beauty more than their "formal study", I think it plays a major role. We admire and enjoy art and beauty in any guise we find it in. We are overwhelmed by the beauty of a sunset, a real one, or one painted by Turner. A walk in the trees has benefits to our 'mental health', we are told, and this is down, at least in part, to aesthetics, I think.

If we also consider that many of us find beauty in music, and all the other aspects of our culture, it is clear that aesthetics plays an important, perhaps indispensable, role in all of our lives.

I am surprised at how aesthetics doesn't seem to play a significant role in philosophy as it it did so historically. Kant wrote about aesthetic judgments and Kierkergaard saw comparison between aesthetics and morality. I wonder if it has become undervalued due to the bias in favour of science and the hard question of consciousness and philosophy. It may be that aesthetics has become more the subject matter of fine art and literary studies and my own interest may because I am interested in the creative arts.

As you say, most people find beauty in aspects of life but may not stop and reflect on it. If anything the understanding of mindfulness may incorporate this. I partly wonder if the less of emphasis on appreciation of aesthetics is because in many ways the arts have drifted in the direction of entertainment which is consumer orientated, as a form of outlet and way of winding down rather than being at the centre of appreciation for many. It may be mainly those who create the arts who may treat it with seriousness rather than taking it in as an aspect of consumerism. The rise and aftermath of postmodernism may have been a critical factor but it is likely that aesthetics and the arts are still important fo many human beings, and if it is not, it may be an indication of humans having become robotic, because it is interrelated to qualitative experience and expression. If anything, Andy Warhol's soup cans symbolise the manufacture of images in connection with consumer lifestyles in Western culture.

[The Beast]

The sublime is fundamental to most philosophies and doctrines. In the journal of modern philology Cohn and Miles have an interesting essay related to Alchemy, Aesthetics, and psychoanalysis. In addition, the word sublime spells the same in many European languages. However, the Germans although recognizable spelled differently and so it is debatable whether they take “lightness” as the base for the Burke’s sublime as well as Kant’s ideology I know of a title ‘the secret of lightness’ but know little of its content. In other German philosophers, the sublime is a little different as such is Nietzsche’s concept of people of genius and the ideas in ‘Beyond Good and Evil’. Interestingly, Plotinus’s synthesis is to divide the sublime into a Platonic intelligible reality and the Aristotelian sensible reality. The concept of the peri-psyche (Aristotle) is fundamental in the meetings of the Oulipo’s Foundation (Foucault, Lacan, and others) and here I traced a similar concept the peri-hupsous written in Greek by Longino. This concept (peri-hupsous) is fundamental to modern philosophies dealing with language and conceptions present in thought.

[Pattern-chaser]

As you say, most people find beauty in aspects of life but may not stop and reflect on it.

Yes. And in addition, I think most people find beauty in aspects of life, and stop (briefly, perhaps) to enjoy it, without reflection?

[JackDaydream]

The sublime is fundamental to most philosophies and doctrines. In the journal of modern philology Cohn and Miles have an interesting essay related to Alchemy, Aesthetics, and psychoanalysis. In addition, the word sublime spells the same in many European languages. However, the Germans although recognizable spelled differently and so it is debatable whether they take “lightness” as the base for the Burke’s sublime as well as Kant’s ideology I know of a title ‘the secret of lightness’ but know little of its content. In other German philosophers, the sublime is a little different as such is Nietzsche’s concept of people of genius and the ideas in ‘Beyond Good and Evil’. Interestingly, Plotinus’s synthesis is to divide the sublime into a Platonic intelligible reality and the Aristotelian sensible reality. The concept of the peri-psyche (Aristotle) is fundamental in the meetings of the Oulipo’s Foundation (Foucault, Lacan, and others) and here I traced a similar concept the peri-hupsous written in Greek by Longino. This concept (peri-hupsous) is fundamental to modern philosophies dealing with language and conceptions present in thought.

It seems that you have read a lot on aesthetics. I have read some of Kant's writing on aesthetic judgments and was surprised how he sees the subjective aspects because he argues for a priori in many respects. One aspect, which is related more to cognitive psychology, which I see as being important is neuroplasticity because it does seem that the emotional basis of aesthetics goes back to childhood in particular. I am interested to know what Lacan thinks on aesthetics because I would like to read his work but have not managed to do so at the present time.

[JackDaydream]

As you say, most people find beauty in aspects of life but may not stop and reflect on it.

Yes. And in addition, I think most people find beauty in aspects of life, and stop (briefly, perhaps) to enjoy it, without reflection?

It does seem strange to me that a lot of people don't reflect on aesthetics but it may be culturally variable and I think that my parents did encourage me to do so. Also, I do mix with people who make art and do creative writing or make music so I am used to people talking about their views on aesthetic taste. It may be that many people take tastes for granted and I know people who find it hard to accept others' tastes because they see their own as ultimate and unchallengable. Also, I wonder if those who don't reflect on what they see as beautiful find it difficult or easy to speak about what they feel is ugly.

[The Beast]

Perceiving from the somatic basis is inferred from the totality of sensual perceptions where many of such reside in and around the threshold to the psychic area and are conscious, semi-conscious or unconscious at different levels and times. IMO the concept of the sublime is realized with the experience of the conscious motion not done by consciousness but by the wholeness of the subject. IMO the sublime can only be experienced when metaphysical forces are involved overcoming the will capable of modifying reflex or instinctual processes in the wholeness sublime moment. IMO a conscious sublime moment is not a wholeness sublime moment and so it is the material and the immaterial differentiation. The discovery of this difference is the early work of Kierkegaard’s concept of irony before his ‘unbearable lightness of being’ The perceiving is important in Kierkegaard’s opinion of the ironic Socrates.