Z
Variable Constant
The act of defining, Gnu, removes the subjective content. For example, the 'light year' - the distance light travels in a vacuum in one Earth Year - is objective. That it has been defined as such is not subjective whatsoever.
But the act of perception is by default subjective. It requires certain assumptions and knowledge to make 'objective observations' - and, again, that's where definitions come in handy.
If I hold up two fingers and say 'this far apart', the subjective nature of perception means that any two people are likely to disagree on what I'm saying. But if I say 'one foot', then because of the objective nature of the definition of 'foot' and 'one', two people should know exactly what I'm saying.
The problem with 'beauty' is that it has never, ever been defined objectively. Some standards are recorded in different societies - such as 'small feet' or 'extended lips' or 'symmetrical breasts'. But those standards can vary wildly between cultures and - worse - between individuals.
I cannot look at a yardstick and say, 'That's not a yard'. But I can look at a person with small feet and say, 'Those feet are not beautiful'. I cannot look at a red light and say 'that's not red'; but I can look at a woman with pale white skin and say 'she is not beautiful'.
If each of us encounters the same canvas, for example, we could easily agree that it is a meter tall by a meter-and-a-half wide, that the frame is brown wood, that the colors used are blue, green, and yellow. These things are defined and have become objectified through our common languages. We can even translate between different systems - I can say it's about a yard wide, while you say it's a meter wide, but through simple conversion we can see that we're saying the same thing.
But when you comment on the beauty of the symmetry, the proportions, the balance of light and dark, and I comment on the ugliness of the chosen subject, the course brush strokes, the blurry overall effect of the painting - I cannot agree with you on the canvas' beauty if I do not share your standards of beauty. Indeed, even if you show me your standards, they are not mine, necessarily, and what you define as 'beautiful' I am still completely free to define as 'ugly', and neither of us is right or wrong.
Beauty is nothing more than an opinion, and opinions are subjective.
Consensus reality is nothing more than mass opinion, and as such, is subjective. Likewise, the definition of 'objective' that depends upon viewers is also subjective.
As I apply objective, I always imagine the topic as if there were no one present. Is this crystal beautiful if no one observes it? Is it still hard? Does it still reflect light? Is the light blue?
Those questions that still are answered affirmative are objective answers; those in the negative, subjective ones.
I do not believe that reality ceases to exist if no observers are present. But without observers, things like beauty and good do not exist.
But the act of perception is by default subjective. It requires certain assumptions and knowledge to make 'objective observations' - and, again, that's where definitions come in handy.
If I hold up two fingers and say 'this far apart', the subjective nature of perception means that any two people are likely to disagree on what I'm saying. But if I say 'one foot', then because of the objective nature of the definition of 'foot' and 'one', two people should know exactly what I'm saying.
The problem with 'beauty' is that it has never, ever been defined objectively. Some standards are recorded in different societies - such as 'small feet' or 'extended lips' or 'symmetrical breasts'. But those standards can vary wildly between cultures and - worse - between individuals.
I cannot look at a yardstick and say, 'That's not a yard'. But I can look at a person with small feet and say, 'Those feet are not beautiful'. I cannot look at a red light and say 'that's not red'; but I can look at a woman with pale white skin and say 'she is not beautiful'.
If each of us encounters the same canvas, for example, we could easily agree that it is a meter tall by a meter-and-a-half wide, that the frame is brown wood, that the colors used are blue, green, and yellow. These things are defined and have become objectified through our common languages. We can even translate between different systems - I can say it's about a yard wide, while you say it's a meter wide, but through simple conversion we can see that we're saying the same thing.
But when you comment on the beauty of the symmetry, the proportions, the balance of light and dark, and I comment on the ugliness of the chosen subject, the course brush strokes, the blurry overall effect of the painting - I cannot agree with you on the canvas' beauty if I do not share your standards of beauty. Indeed, even if you show me your standards, they are not mine, necessarily, and what you define as 'beautiful' I am still completely free to define as 'ugly', and neither of us is right or wrong.
Beauty is nothing more than an opinion, and opinions are subjective.
Consensus reality is nothing more than mass opinion, and as such, is subjective. Likewise, the definition of 'objective' that depends upon viewers is also subjective.
As I apply objective, I always imagine the topic as if there were no one present. Is this crystal beautiful if no one observes it? Is it still hard? Does it still reflect light? Is the light blue?
Those questions that still are answered affirmative are objective answers; those in the negative, subjective ones.
I do not believe that reality ceases to exist if no observers are present. But without observers, things like beauty and good do not exist.
