The nature of beauty: subjective or objective?

[Malachi151]

What makes the "beauty" discussion more confusing is that beauty almost seems like a normal "objective" quality because of the fact that due to inheritance and natural selection all of our standards for beauty are very similar, though not exactly the same.

99% of people who look at a mangy dog with rabies and puss sores on it are going to call it ugly, and 99% of people who look at a woman with smooth healthy skin, clean hair, a healthy weight, etc., are going to call her attractive.

That's just because we all have extremely similar programming, due to natural selection, but one could just as easily genetically engineer (in theory) a person who would find the mangy dog attractive and the healthy women ugly.

Culture plays a role as well of course, but we also typically talk about these things in a shared culture too.

Ours tastes are similar enough that things like beauty, good tasting food, pleasant sounds, etc., seem almost like objective qualities in and of themselves, but they really aren't, those opinions are reactions to sets of objective features, which we all tend to react to in similar, but not identical, ways.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I couldn't agree more.

 

[Z]

Well said, Ichi!

If we so define objective to include the observation of processes and complete comprehension of the nature of perception and neural processing, we eliminate all but the very irrelevant 'what it is like' part of every experience, and render the notion of 'subjective' to be completely pointless. Yes, from this viewpoint, beauty becomes objective; but so, then, does every single opinion, thought, idea, or notion ever existent. It renders 'objective' into a useless and pointless monism (and equates 'subjective' to 'qualia').

If we're to use objective vs. subjective, we have to use definitions with a specific purpose in mind. Rome has chosen to subjectively define standards of beauty, and then apply those objectively to things he observes. But he chooses to ignore the fact that the very standards of beauty he chooses are subjective themselves - because he selected them - and instead harps on his objective application of the term. I use 'objectively' loosely here, since he also twists meanings and terms numerous times, and even uses subjective concepts to underly his allegedly objective terms.

Consider his use of 'symmetry'. When backed into the corner on the meanings he employed, he revealed that his notion of 'symmetry' - a supposedly objective factor - includes 'internal symmetry - feelings and thoughts' - in other words, purely subjective concepts.

Of course, he's just backpeddling and prevaricating to cover his own fully exposed backside.

Let's recap (and please take into account, this is what I've gathered from reading quoted material and your replies to him):

Rome tries to make a statement about objectivity vs. subjectivity by saying, "'Angelina Jolie is a beautiful woman' is an objective statement".

He solidly delcares several times that beauty is objective.

He then prevaricates a bit and claims that beauty is both objective and subjective.

He then claims that beauty is perfect symmetry, and perfect symmetry is objective.

He claims that perfect symmetry is the combination of planar, radial, and bilateral symmetry in the human face, and is objective.

When it is pointed out that the human face does not exhibit radial symmetry, and that many objects that are bilaterally symmetrical are, in fact, ugly, he falls back on a more vague definition of symmetry, one that adds in proportions, balance, and harmony.

He further prevaricates and decides that symmetry includes spiritual/mental/emotional symmetry (whatever that's supposed to mean) as well.

He then further claims that symmetry includes symmetry of thoughts and feelings - i.e., purely subjective components.

So where has this lead us?

"'Angelina Jolie is a beautiful woman' is an objective and subjective statement, the objective component of which is perfect symmetry=beauty, in which perfect symmetry = the combination of facial planar symmetry and a number of subjective factors."

Or, to reduce the equation:

"'Angelina Jolie is a beautiful woman' is a subjective statement."

Yet he cannot admit to this contradiction, since he HAS to claim his 'arguments are advancing and face no contradiction'.

After all, he's got all those dozens of people at his own forum to impress, you know.

But the example I'm pointing out shows the dangers of not defining words appropriately and not using them properly. Rome is a prime example of a thinker who misuses terms so regularly, that one cannot know what he is arguing from moment to moment.

As to objective vs. subjective, we don't have to decide for ourselves whether a tree is a tree, or whether a beaver isn't a kitten. We do have to decide for ourselves whether a tree is beautiful or ghastly, or whether we prefer beaver to kittens. No one can tell us what we find beautiful, and that makes beauty subjective.

 

[Z]

What makes the "beauty" discussion more confusing is that beauty almost seems like a normal "objective" quality because of the fact that due to inheritance and natural selection all of our standards for beauty are very similar, though not exactly the same.

99% of people who look at a mangy dog with rabies and puss sores on it are going to call it ugly, and 99% of people who look at a woman with smooth healthy skin, clean hair, a healthy weight, etc., are going to call her attractive.

That's just because we all have extremely similar programming, due to natural selection, but one could just as easily genetically engineer (in theory) a person who would find the mangy dog attractive and the healthy women ugly.

Culture plays a role as well of course, but we also typically talk about these things in a shared culture too.

Ours tastes are similar enough that things like beauty, good tasting food, pleasant sounds, etc., seem almost like objective qualities in and of themselves, but they really aren't, those opinions are reactions to sets of objective features, which we all tend to react to in similar, but not identical, ways.

Interestingly, the people who don't think of beauty as subjective are also often those who have had no exposure to other cultures, or are not students of history and anthropology.

You mentioned 'a healthy weight' - yet the women considered beautiful in our culture are often not a healthy weight at all. They are often thin to the point of being gaunt. They attempt to replicate the elfin proportions of children, when they aren't.

Other cultures have other standards. Some cultures find body hair a sign of health. Some prefer women with well-padded hips or large buttocks, some prefer women to be downright chubby. Some prefer women with extended necks, protruding lips, or facial scarring.

Historically, one need only examine the paintings and sculptures of our past to see that standards of beauty have changed - repeatedly and occasionally completely - throughout history. The earliest carved images seem to deify the fat woman, with her curvaceous breasts and well-rounded buttocks. Rennaissance paintings saw white skin - a sign of anemia or other health problems - as being beautiful. The Greeks emphasized sculpted muscles and small genitals as beautiful. The Japanese emphasized (again) unhealthy white skin, tiny (often mutilated) feet, and tiny mouths.

Consider the corset! Consider foot binding! Consider all the rituals and ceremonies of mutilation that all these various cultures have embraced in the quest for beauty!

I cannot see how ANY student of history or traveller or person interested in cultural diversity can claim that standards of beauty are universal.

Such a claim reveals the Eurocentric and small-minded nature of the claimant.

 

[Malachi151]

You mentioned 'a healthy weight' - yet the women considered beautiful in our culture are often not a healthy weight at all. They are often thin to the point of being gaunt. They attempt to replicate the elfin proportions of children, when they aren't.

Other cultures have other standards. Some cultures find body hair a sign of health. Some prefer women with well-padded hips or large buttocks, some prefer women to be downright chubby. Some prefer women with extended necks, protruding lips, or facial scarring.

I knew I was getting into trouble with this one, but I was just trying to keep it simple

Yes, you are correct, but the point it still the same.

 

[sackett]

My girl friend is a volunteer docent at the Detroit Zoo. She's particularly fond of the Zoo's two rhinos. She regularly calls them "cute." She's even called them "beautiful." Yes, 8,000 pounds of adult male white rhinos.

I try to tell her that words like cute and beautiful, as well as ugly and horrific, are meaningless in the context of RHONOCERI. Our little ape mouth-noises can never be adequate to a RHINOCEROS.

Put another way, our words, like our concepts, are too puny to match that immense reality. So yes, they're just subjective.

I wonder if I'm contributing anything here? Oh well, I'm going to the Zoo this Sunday, and I expect to have my notions confirmed in the presence of EIGHT THOUSAND POUNDS OF RHINOCEROSES.

(Edited to fix 2 dumb typos.)

 

[jimbob]

I would argue that it wouldn't matter if everybody found a particular person attractive. Unless you can say that they all find this person *exactly* the same level *and type* of attractiveness. What about shoe fetishes?

That is not to say that there aren't traits that tend to be attractive, often for sound evolutionary reasons.

After reading some of the discussions about apparantly altruistic behaviour by animals, (e.g. the female gorilla that rescued a human child in New York Zoo, my google-fu is weak today) I was wondering if those that have been documented to demonstrate this behaviour are actually those that are considered "cute".

If their babies look cute to us, is it possible that our babies might look similarly cute to them?

However this is still subjective.

Nice to see Davidjayjordan and BF on the same side...

Jim

 

[jimbob]

Consider the corset! Consider foot binding! Consider all the rituals and ceremonies of mutilation that all these various cultures have embraced in the quest for beauty!

I cannot see how ANY student of history or traveller or person interested in cultural diversity can claim that standards of beauty are universal.

Such a claim reveals the Eurocentric and small-minded nature of the claimant.

I just had to quote part of the post, although the whole makes the point very well.

Aesthetics is a matter of aesthetics, and is subjective; it is virtually a tautology.

There is a different atrgument as to whether there are "universal" or near univeral traits that are considered beautiful.

Put it this way: If people only wanted to mate with those people that obviously demonstrated low fertility, then there wouldn't be anyone around.

Health and fecundity are very common indicators of attractiveness.

Jim

 

[Solus]

Interestingly, the people who don't think of beauty as subjective are also often those who have had no exposure to other cultures, or are not students of history and anthropology.

You mentioned 'a healthy weight' - yet the women considered beautiful in our culture are often not a healthy weight at all. They are often thin to the point of being gaunt. They attempt to replicate the elfin proportions of children, when they aren't.

Other cultures have other standards. Some cultures find body hair a sign of health. Some prefer women with well-padded hips or large buttocks, some prefer women to be downright chubby. Some prefer women with extended necks, protruding lips, or facial scarring.

Historically, one need only examine the paintings and sculptures of our past to see that standards of beauty have changed - repeatedly and occasionally completely - throughout history. The earliest carved images seem to deify the fat woman, with her curvaceous breasts and well-rounded buttocks. Rennaissance paintings saw white skin - a sign of anemia or other health problems - as being beautiful. The Greeks emphasized sculpted muscles and small genitals as beautiful. The Japanese emphasized (again) unhealthy white skin, tiny (often mutilated) feet, and tiny mouths.

Consider the corset! Consider foot binding! Consider all the rituals and ceremonies of mutilation that all these various cultures have embraced in the quest for beauty!

I cannot see how ANY student of history or traveller or person interested in cultural diversity can claim that standards of beauty are universal.

Such a claim reveals the Eurocentric and small-minded nature of the claimant.

I wouldn't be so hard on the claimant as not everyone enjoys studying history. Look what woman (some men too) do in America: ear piercing what's the point? I'm pretty sure almost all American women have this pointless thing done to themselves; it's a right of passage and all that.

 

[WWHP]

Um, OK, but I have a limited amount of time and don't generally traipse about to look at other threads in depth. I have barely sampled anything on this site outside the Philosophy and Religion subheading. If you would like to discuss it here I would be happy to do so. Perhaps cutting and pasting to this thread? If not, that is OK too, since I realize I am asking a bit much.

No worries, will do so.

 

[WWHP]

Bubblefish,

I think you need to be a little clearer on what you mean by objective and subjective.

Objective is external reality
Subjective is internal reality

We use these words in ways that confuse the topic more than help.

agreed. There is a common misperception regarding objective/subjective. However, this discussion has been about objective/subjective, and I introduced beauty to accentuate these distinctions.

For instance, when someone says that beauty is subjective, they generally do not mean that it is completely and utterly subjective; rather there is a subjective component to it.

I disagree, I think that some people do mean purely subjective, and they mean purely subjective because their philosophy necessitates it.

Otherwise, I agree, there is a subjective component to beauty. There is also a objective component to beauty.

One of the general ways of using "objective" means "true independent of viewpoint" or it can mean "true for everyone within a group".

I define objective in this regard as that which is mutually viewable, in potential or in the actual.

Your current examples seem to imply different uses of the term -- the computer example using the first, the appeal to symmetry using the second.

I give the computer as an example of their being objectifiable information which relates to beauty. Symmetry is mutually viewable potentially. However, to view a symmetry, one has to have a framework with which to perceive it, so therefore, beauty as symmetry is potentially viewable. Beauty can be discovered in things, no?

Our ability to perceive outer symmetry, I suggest, is relational to our inner symmetry, our subjectivity, which metaphysically is thinking and feeling.

Therefore, there is an interdependent relationship with the thinking/feeling metaphysical symmetry and an external symmetry.

For beauty to be objective, it must be true for every observer.

Yes, but consider, it can be potentially viewable. There are many scientists and mathematicians, and a few philosophers, who suggest that string theory is very beautiful, it's symmetries the highest of elegance. Yet, who can view that other than those trained in rigorous studies? So we can say that string theory has potential beauty if one was a mathematician and physicist.

We clearly do not see complete agreement in individual examples or in standards of beauty across cultures.

There are repeating characteristics relative to each culture. Perhaps a tribe in Tora Bora cannot perceive Angelina Jolie's beauty simply because they have no cultural framework at all to even see it, perhaps beauty became symmetrical with some other harmony relative to them. What all of them share in common, however, is an expression of form that is a expression of some potential that is can be exalted in physical forms.

We do see basic algorithms that we all seem to use (I doubt it is true of every human, though) to decide upon the beautiful. This is reflected in the computer example, for instance. But that does not cover the field of beauty. It is merely one aspect of it, modified by several others, many of which are individual or group based.

Well, the computer can analyze beautiful faces because beauty in the face is easier to define. I'm not saying that the computer can analyze beauty fully, it can't, it has no internal subjective harmony to experience along with the external.

You have essentially already lost the argument by stating that beauty is both objective and subjective.

I can see how it could appear that way at first glance, but I don’t think so, rather, I think it is the 'winning' idea here philosophically, and can argue my position quite rationally without producing contradiction in my actual meaning.

That means that beauty is subjective.

Hmmm, I have to assume that you have a higher philosophical argument here, I don’t see how you can say that objective/subjective beauty is subjective.

Of course we share means of deciding what is beautiful.

We are mutually hard wired to value it, yes.

If we didn't we wouldn't be able to discuss the matter. Objective is absolute. Subjective is not.

Hmm, yes, there is a higher philosophical argument here. Can you define how you are using 'absolute'?

Any combination of objectivity and subjectivity amounts to subjectivity.

It may amount to subjectivity in the sense that human reality is a construction of our nervous systems and brains, yes, so our idea of objective reality is relative to what we all can agree on in principle, and then what is subjective is what is unique.

I can't think of any other way to apply subjectivity here in the grander sense other than that. Was that what you meant?

It is subjectivity within a framework, but that is what virtually everyone has argued all along in this thread -- and that includes Zaay.

If you define framework as shared human nervous system, then I would say no, that is not what anyone is arguing for on this thread, most especially Zaay.


Looking forward to your response. Thank you for the well thought through reply.


Bubblefish

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Objective is external reality
Subjective is internal reality

That is one sense of objective/subjective. But that is not the sense in which one can speak of "Angelina Jolie as objectively beautiful". For her to be objectively beautiful in the sense of "objective is external reality", then beauty would necessarily be an integral part of the universe. It would not depend on anyone's particular viewpoint.

Unfortunately, objective has many different meanings.

agreed. There is a common misperception regarding objective/subjective. However, this discussion has been about objective/subjective, and I introduced beauty to accentuate these distinctions.

Then it is vitally important that we not shift the definition to other connotations of objective and subjective. If objective means "that which we can observe in external reality", then where does valuation come into play? Beauty is a vlaue judgment. Are you saying that external reality already contains those values within it, and people disagreeing about various beauties demonstrate that one person is right and another is wrong?

I disagree, I think that some people do mean purely subjective, and they mean purely subjective because their philosophy necessitates it.

Well, I for one certainly do not. I don't think Zaay does either, but I really shouldn't speak for him, especially since you seem to have an entirely different opinion of his opinion.

Otherwise, I agree, there is a subjective component to beauty. There is also a objective component to beauty.

Again we need to be very careful about how we use the words objective and subjective here. There is clearly an process theoretically observable to others involved in the process of our valuations. We have a wiring diagram that is shared by most of us (there are always exceptions, unfortunately), so we tend to see the same things as beautiful. That idea contains two senses of the word "objective", both slightly incorrectly. The fact that we see things pretty much the same is nice, and this allows us to talk about beauty together and make sense of it; but how many people must see things the same way for beauty, or value, or whatever to be "objective"? Is it objective (meaning inter-subjective agreement) if 99% of us agree? Or 72%? Does it require 100%? Objective is a very strong word. I think it implies 100% concordance. The other issue is the process by which we arrive at this seeming consensus, which is theoretically obervable -- we can look at some of the process in neuron firings, but we only describe what happens from the outside. We don't actually observe the valuation. We observe the process that creates the valuation. We don't feel the valuation itself -- which is what constitutes beauty. Describing the process can be objective. The feeling of the valuation has to remain subjective (which only means that one person is the observer rather than many).

I give the computer as an example of their being objectifiable information which relates to beauty. Symmetry is mutually viewable potentially. However, to view a symmetry, one has to have a framework with which to perceive it, so therefore, beauty as symmetry is potentially viewable. Beauty can be discovered in things, no?

I'm not so sure that beauty can be discovered in things. Vision, for instance, is not a passive process. Our nervous system extracts particular kinds of information from the heady bustle of the universe since the whole panoply of potential sensations would be overwhelming. Beauty seems, to me, to arise from an interaction between the observer and the object observed. I don't think the object itself has any intrinsic beauty. If there were no observer would the word "beauty" mean anything?

Making sense of anything in the universe, and this includes the possibility of making valuations, depends critically on the internal structures of the observer. A computer without instructions to "see" beauty could never make sense of the concept. There would be no such concept.

We happen to share a common way of evaluating what is beautiful, so we tend to agree on most things. We share a common program, as Malachi put it. But not everyone has exactly the same program. Valuations differ from culture to culture and between individuals because of these differences in "programming". So, the valuations depend on subjective evaluations.

Our ability to perceive outer symmetry, I suggest, is relational to our inner symmetry, our subjectivity, which metaphysically is thinking and feeling.

Our ability to perceive outer symmetry is dependent on the internal construction of our nervous system that extracts information in its own peculiar way. Symmetry is beautiful to us because symmetry confers very useful information -- as far as faces go, genetic "perfection". As many have previously said, part of our hereditary heritage is this orientation toward symmetry because symmetry means something. Those who chose symmetrical mates tended to leave behind more offspring. Now that does not mean that we will forgo a slightly asymmetrical mate since having sex is more important than waiting for that perfectly symmetrical Sheila, or Angelina. But all things considered.......

Therefore, there is an interdependent relationship with the thinking/feeling metaphysical symmetry and an external symmetry.

I'm afraid that I don't quite understand what you mean by metaphysical symmetry. Are you suggesting that our thinking is somehow tied to the structure of the universe (I mean beyond the fact that we are part and parcel of the universe) such that there is some metaphysical property of symmetry that transcends everything?

Yes, but consider, it can be potentially viewable. There are many scientists and mathematicians, and a few philosophers, who suggest that string theory is very beautiful, it's symmetries the highest of elegance. Yet, who can view that other than those trained in rigorous studies? So we can say that string theory has potential beauty if one was a mathematician and physicist.

Well, yeah, because symmetry is one aspect of the stew that creates beauty. But that doesn't really answer the point I was making -- which was to look at various ways of using the word "objective".

There are repeating characteristics relative to each culture. Perhaps a tribe in Tora Bora cannot perceive Angelina Jolie's beauty simply because they have no cultural framework at all to even see it, perhaps beauty became symmetrical with some other harmony relative to them. What all of them share in common, however, is an expression of form that is a expression of some potential that is can be exalted in physical forms.

All fine in its expression, but the bottom line is this.....there is clearly a cultural aspect to beauty valuations. It doesn't matter that there is an underlying algorithym that almost all humans use in beauty valuations as far as deciding that beauty is "objective". There is clearly a component that is culturally biased. I doubt you could find everyone within a single cluture who would agree that Angelina is beautiful, in part because one of the subjective aspects of this is that different people have different cut-off points for "beautiful". In other words, there is again a subjective component to this.

Hmmm, I have to assume that you have a higher philosophical argument here, I don’t see how you can say that objective/subjective beauty is subjective.

There is no need for any further philosophical argument. Again, it is important not to see the word "subjective" and think that I mean purely and completely subjective. "Objective" is a very strong word. It sems to imply something absolute. If there is any "subjective" component to beauty valuations, the beauty valuations are subjective -- meaning, tautologically, that the valuation involves a subjective component. For me at least, for something to be objective, it must be purely objective. No subjectivity invovled. If there is subjectivity involved, then the process is subjective. Again, I do not like the word "objective" because of the way that it is used and the connotations it carries.

Hmm, yes, there is a higher philosophical argument here. Can you define how you are using 'absolute'?

Total agreement inter-subjectively or true independent of any observer (the earth revolves around the sun).

It may amount to subjectivity in the sense that human reality is a construction of our nervous systems and brains, yes, so our idea of objective reality is relative to what we all can agree on in principle, and then what is subjective is what is unique.

I can't think of any other way to apply subjectivity here in the grander sense other than that. Was that what you meant?

Basically, yes.

If you define framework as shared human nervous system, then I would say no, that is not what anyone is arguing for on this thread, most especially Zaay.

It is precisely what I have been arguing (though my initial comments were directed only at my problems with the use of the word "objective"). I really cannot speak for Zaay, then, but it is what I thought he was talking about in earlier discussions about consciousness, for example. I suppose I should let him speak for himself.

Looking forward to your response. Thank you for the well thought through reply.

And the same to you.

 

[WWHP]

Ichneumonwasp,

Interesting name by the way, what does that mean?

Anyway, to recap

Ojective Reality is external reality
Subjective Reality is internal reality.

That is one sense of objective/subjective.

This is the only sense of o/s that I use.

But that is not the sense in which one can speak of "Angelina Jolie as objectively beautiful".

It is the only sense we can speak of Angelina Jolie as objectively beautiful, that is what I suggest. Yes, we have a conflict of idea here.

For her to be objectively beautiful in the sense of "objective is external reality", then beauty would necessarily be an integral part of the universe. It would not depend on anyone's particular viewpoint.

Agreed. That is what I am indeed suggesting and quite capable of rational explanation that suggests this is indeed a logical one.

Unfortunately, objective has many different meanings.

Yes, agreed, that's what I have been arguing about with many people on this issue. The common understanding of objective. It's not a very clear idea, and I have found that most people have very contradictory ideas regarding Objective reality when you break them down.

Then it is vitally important that we not shift the definition to other connotations of objective and subjective. If objective means "that which we can observe in external reality", then where does valuation come into play?

From a point of view of that external reality.

Beauty is a value judgment.

Sure, but it's also a mathematical evaluation, calculation, that our eyes and nervous systems are hardwired to react to and develop appreciation for. This appreciation of beauty could also be argued as a necessary component of society and social structures.

Are you saying that external reality already contains those values within it, and people disagreeing about various beauties demonstrate that one person is right and another is wrong?

Well, to a certain extant, yes, but not right or wrong, rather objective or subjective.

I think the confusion here is perhaps that because some people find different things beautiful, then this disqualifies the repeating characteristics in all forms where beauty is found for certain to be beautiful. It is both objective and subjective.

Look, if someone is having a bad day, they are in a real funk, self obsessed and stressed, and they could walk by the most beautiful object in the world and fail to notice anything special. Does that mean the object isn’t beautiful? If the man was 'clearer', would he not see what he missed?

Not finding beauty is not proof of absence! Objective reality has many distinctions that we miss all the time, due to our own subjective nature, or ideas about objective reality.

haven’t you ever had an 'opinion' about a quality of something, perhaps music or a film, that once you didn’t see anything wonderful about, but perhaps you discover something about it years later that you didn’t get? If so, was it really never there at all then? Of course not, it was always there, and found by others.

If beauty isn’t objective, then it cant be discovered. If beauty can't be discovered, then the term 'hip' would never have any cultural significance.

Again we need to be very careful about how we use the words objective and subjective here. There is clearly an process theoretically observable to others involved in the process of our valuations.

I am strictly staying inside of external/internal reality. I actually don’t even like using the word 'reality', it sounds too deep or complex, rather, I prefer the word 'environment'. external/internal environments are o/s.

We have a wiring diagram that is shared by most of us (there are always exceptions, unfortunately), so we tend to see the same things as beautiful.

Yet the wiring is consistent in significant number for identifying symmetry as beautiful. And 'symmetry', harmony, balance, elegance, synergy, union, all of these words, which are inferred from each one, also have very critical and specific meanings that are also relatable mathematically, which 'looks' beautiful only to mathematicians in their language. To most of us, it just looks like a bunch of symbols, numbers, and letters. We can't see the symmetry in the mathematical expressions, are they then not beautiful? No, of course they are b beautiful to those that can perceive them. And they perceive elegance in structure, and naturally call it beautiful.

That idea contains two senses of the word "objective", both slightly incorrectly. The fact that we see things pretty much the same is nice, and this allows us to talk about beauty together and make sense of it; but how many people must see things the same way for beauty, or value, or whatever to be "objective"?

any significant number

Edit: This may lead to further argument, but please dont think i am saying concensus reality is objective reality, it just functions as if it were objective reality.

Is it objective (meaning inter-subjective agreement) if 99% of us agree? Or 72%? Does it require 100%? Objective is a very strong word. I think it implies 100% concordance.

It implies 100% in potential, yes, but it's impossible in concordance, that would mean all of us would see the same reality each other sees, relative to education, training, culture, etc

I cant see the beauty in the mathematics of String Theory. I do hear how they talk about it though, even those that don’t think String Theory will amount to much. Everyone agrees on the elegance in the math. But I don’t see it, but I don’t know mathematics either. It is assumed that if I had the proper training, I would see what they see too.

The other issue is the process by which we arrive at this seeming consensus, which is theoretically observable -- we can look at some of the process in neuron firings, but we only describe what happens from the outside. We don't actually observe the valuation. We observe the process that creates the valuation. We don't feel the valuation itself -- which is what constitutes beauty.

We don’t see the logical structure of ideas forming when we wire someone's brain while they are performing calculus either, yet we will see neurons firing as well, but calculus is still objective.

Everything has an experience attached to it, you cant just separate the objective from the subjective in experience. The experience of the internal environment is completely and almost perfectly sealed off to an outside point of view.

I'm not so sure that beauty can be discovered in things.

Of course it is discovered in things, just as much as we discover any other things, like logic, geometry, creative skills.

haven’t you ever had a special creative friend who always turns you on to a good movie or piece of music that you didn't get before?

I'm an artist, and also have many many artist friends. Actually most people I know are artists of some kind. My favorite artists are the cartoonists. They always have the most amazing taste in so many different areas of art, and have constantly turned me on to more beauty in form that I may have missed otherwise. If someone finds something beautiful truthfully, and I can see they are really moved, and if I cant see what they see, I want to know what I am missing!

Beauty seems, to me, to arise from an interaction between the observer and the object observed.

Me too, but our difference is, I think, that you don’t think beauty really exists, and I am saying that beauty is not just the connection between the two, which is another harmony, but it is also represented in both of them.

I don't think the object itself has any intrinsic beauty. If there were no observer would the word "beauty" mean anything?

But there are observers, and the answer to your question as what would really exist if there were not is not comprehensible in any meaningful or rational sense, according to my point of view. We simply are limited to modeling reality with observers in it. It is impossible for us to model a reality with no observers, for even the model itself would be a contradiction.

Making sense of anything in the universe, and this includes the possibility of making valuations, depends critically on the internal structures of the observer. A computer without instructions to "see" beauty could never make sense of the concept. There would be no such concept.

A computer doesn’t have concepts about computers either, or anything. Computers do not have experience.

We happen to share a common way of evaluating what is beautiful, so we tend to agree on most things. We share a common program, as Malachi put it.

program would be more cultural influence, and I don’t think our hardwiring could reasonably be modeled as a 'program'. We are programmed to make distinctions in our environments. We gravitate towards distinctions we find appealing and easy to assimilate. We naturally find symmetry appealing in all forms, either conceptually, metaphysically, experientially, sonically, radiantly, emotionally, erotically, philosophically, mathematically, and visually. It's not just limited to pretty faces and a nice tush!

But not everyone has exactly the same program. Valuations differ from culture to culture and between individuals because of these differences in "programming". So, the valuations depend on subjective evaluations.

I agree that subjective programming, and I think programming is actually a good word here to model the subjective component, is utilized by our hardwiring, or vice versa.

If I spent a few years with some tribe in bora bora learning their traditions and see things from there point of view, I would be able to find beautiful what they agreed was mutually beautiful amongst them.

Take Samoans. HUMONGOUS PEOPLE! I went to Hawaii once and hung out with a number of them. Now, if I am a Samoan, my sense of symmetry in female form is going to be different than say, um, anyone else's! But it's still a symmetry relative to their culture and genetics.

For example, here in America, many African American Males, or at least the ones that I know, simply may love a 'big booty'. A big booty is still holding symmetries, even though Paris Hilton would not find those set of symmetries hot, she finds a different set of symmetries hot, the symmetries of thinness.

Our ability to perceive outer symmetry is dependent on the internal construction of our nervous system that extracts information in its own peculiar way. Symmetry is beautiful to us because symmetry confers very useful information -- as far as faces go, genetic "perfection". As many have previously said, part of our hereditary heritage is this orientation toward symmetry because symmetry means something. Those who chose symmetrical mates tended to leave behind more offspring. Now that does not mean that we will forgo a slightly asymmetrical mate since having sex is more important than waiting for that perfectly symmetrical Sheila, or Angelina. But all things considered.......

genetics can only account for the physical mating beauties. What about all other beautiful things? How is it that great music is so elegant and harmonious?

I'm afraid that I don't quite understand what you mean by metaphysical symmetry. Are you suggesting that our thinking is somehow tied to the structure of the universe (I mean beyond the fact that we are part and parcel of the universe) such that there is some metaphysical property of symmetry that transcends everything?

No, I'm not suggesting that. I'm not denying it either, I don’t know, that's a mystery to me if there is. I am saying that our internal environments are indeed modified by two •quarks• in the universe, thinking and feeling. I used the word 'quark' artistically there, not analytically.

I am saying that thinking and feeling are metaphysical, are ontological, yet objectively they exist in the universe because they are indeed components of ourselves that operate reality, we know they exist because we experience them, and there empirical quality is uniquely subjective, but mutual, and thus, thinking and feeling do objectively exist as metaphysical structures.

Our perception/experience internally is distinguishable by thinking and feeling, or some layer that relates to thinking and feeling. That's a coupling, a set of harmonies, mutually experienced and perceived. when one is experiencing beauty, joy, inspiration, or any set of pleasant experience or focus, or a nightmare, when one is experiencing anxiety, confusion, depression, etc etc.

In their balance or harmony, we find beauty. In their disruption or conflict, we find misery. That may sound poetic, but it's meant simply as an objective observation that can in potential be agreed upon and experienced/experienced.

All fine in its expression, but the bottom line is this.....there is clearly a cultural aspect to beauty valuations.

agreed

It doesn't matter that there is an underlying algorithm that almost all humans use in beauty valuations as far as deciding that beauty is "objective".

I don’t agree. I think it's very relevant to consider, especially in philosophy, art, and science.

There is clearly a component that is culturally biased. I doubt you could find everyone within a single culture who would agree that Angelina is beautiful, in part because one of the subjective aspects of this is that different people have different cut-off points for "beautiful". In other words, there is again a subjective component to this.

agreed, there is a subjective component. a subjective component can culturally or personally, in principle, not perceive or frame something that does indeed exist.

Remember those cheesy drawings that when you stared at them after a few minutes, some trick would happen in your brain where the object would take on depth of field? I forget what they were called. Some people couldn’t see it, no matter how long they looked. So tell me, was it really not there in objective reality, or did they simply not have the framework, for what ever reason, to view the floating Tiger?

How was the depth of field perceived to exist when it really didn’t on the flat picture, unless there was some mutually viewable pattern going on that produced a depth of field illusion in the brain of most people?

I now submit those cheesy depth of field illusions as proof of the objective/subjective coupling of environment, and a good example of 'beautiful'

Total agreement inter-subjectively or true independent of any observer (the earth revolves around the sun).

so when I say objective reality, just translate that into your 'absolute reality' and we should have understanding.

But don’t assume that total agreement is the only thing there is to confirm about absolute reality, we don’t have total agreement on evolution, right? But evolution is still a function of objective reality regardless. It's just agreeable in potential when all parties are rational agents.

To find beauty in art and science, one must be a rational and/or intuitive agent. To find something means that it exists. We cannot find anything that is not there.

Beauty Exists. It is internal and external.


Beautiful discussion, eh?

Bubblefish

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Bubblefish,

I think I may see the difference in approaches, so correct me if I am wrong, please. Basically this seems to boil down to differences in philosophy of mind. The "beauty debate" is only an example that eases discussion.

From what I gather you are saying, you think the valuation we make as beauty is a component part of the external world (not the valuation itself, but beauty itself). We interact with beautiful objects and see beauty because of internal templates that we have to recognize "the beautiful". In other words, beauty for you is a metaphysical concept that we can "see" when the beautiful matches our internal template, for example symmetry in face, etc. Does that get close to your opinion? Hit it on the head? Or am I way off base?

ETA
Or, put another way, beauty would exist in the external world whether or not we existed to evaluate it. No one would be able to talk about beauty, since we wouldn't exist; but beauty would still exist in the radical absence of any observer. Is that your position?

 

[Mercutio]

[aside]
I like very much, Ichneumonwasp, that you have seen the utility in the private/public nomenclature over the subjective/objective. I also like the very useful term "intersubjective" for those who don't grok the private/public bit.
[/aside]

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Mercutio,

Thanks, I find those terms very useful now. Thank you again for introducing them to me. Re: screen names, what made you choose Mercutio? Impatial observer not on the side of warring parties? Jocular friend and lover of queen Mab? Or the opportunity to use the cool picture of Ben Affleck as Ned?

Bubblefish,

Sorry, I forgot to address above your question about by screen name. It refers to debates in natural theology as they relate to natural selection. It is supposed to be a reminder that when we look at evidence we must take all evidence into account, not just that which supports our pet hypotheses. In natural religion, one prominent idea is that the order of the cosmos, the benefit of the rain cycle, etc. shows clear proof of a benevolent God. One variety of the ichneumon wasp was traditionally used as a counter argument. This variety of wasp injects larvae into a host (usually a beetle, if memory serves), and the larvae slow eat the host alive from the inside out leaving the host alive for sufficient time so that the larvae may develop free from other predators. That scenario paints a particulary gruesome picture of nature red in tooth and claw and would seem to argue against a simplified "oooh, aren't the rabbits cute" picture of a benevolent papa in the sky.

Plus I tired of my old screen name from another board -- Akhmet -- though I did enjoy the folks who thought I must be a radical islamic terrorist with a screen name like that. There is a long and boring story behind it with which I won't bother you.

 

[Paulhoff]

I wonder what an alien to the earth would say about a rainbow if they had no color vision and saw in a different part spectrum, lets say in the infrared part, would that rainbow still be beautiful to them.

Paul

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I wonder what an alien to the earth would say about a rainbow if they had no color vision and saw in a different part spectrum, lets say in the infrared part, would that rainbow still be beautiful to them.

Paul

If I read Bubblefish correctly, I believe his answer would be, "Of course they do not see the rainbow as beautiful. They don't have the ability to see its beauty. The beauty is still there in the rainbow, but those aliens simply cannot access the beauty of it." Or, alternatively that they might see the beauty in its symmetry (the symmetry of the arc) but appreciate it in a different way from us because they "see" in a different portion of the electromagnetic spectrum.

I think that is what he would say.

 

[Paulhoff]

subjective again..........

Paul



It all depends on the subject that is observing and on the subject being observed

 

[IllegalArgument]

If I read Bubblefish correctly, I believe his answer would be, "Of course they do not see the rainbow as beautiful. They don't have the ability to see its beauty. The beauty is still there in the rainbow, but those aliens simply cannot access the beauty of it." Or, alternatively that they might see the beauty in its symmetry (the symmetry of the arc) but appreciate it in a different way from us because they "see" in a different portion of the electromagnetic spectrum.

I think that is what he would say.

Oh dear, I see we have yet another person who believes Platonic essences are real.

Bubblefish, not you Ichneumonwasp.