"see" discern or deduce mentally after reflection or from information; understand.
Enough?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Beauty
- Thread starter Nous
- Start date
Enough?
What I meant by this: "Provide the evidence that music is not what people most commonly perceive as beautiful" is to cite the evidence.
I do not understand. I think lots of superior people believe music is beautiful. Of course, I am not in their class, but sometimes water is musical, and I call musical water beautiful. Before I continue
........................I should probably read all those words first. Sometimes too many words is distracting.
Are? No! The whole bunch together is distracting. I think that a whole bunch is one. I might be wrong. I usually am. Sorry. I am having a crisis. Forgive me, please.
There is nothing to forgive you for. Please don't have a crisis, especially because of something I said.
It isn't you. It is me. I am having a life crisis.
I am sorry to hear that, savagewind. You definitely have my best wishes in all things.
Thank you so much!
Koldo
Outstanding Member
No. That is not what I meant.
For instance, can you mention one music that everyone agrees to be beautiful ?
Ok. Prove it then.
In that case, perhaps everyone perceives beauty different in some way not because there is something wrong with them, but perhaps just because beauty is instructed by nature and nurture. What do you think ?
Beauty is what they feel.
That this is not an intrinsic property is illustrated by what is beautiful to one
person, can be ugly or neutral to another. Another illustration is human
preference for landscapes which are savannah like, reflecting our origins
of being both predator & prey.
Can you name one scientific theory that everyone agrees on? I can't. There are hot disagreements about how to interpret quantum theory. Should we conclude from that fact that quantum theory lacks any objective aspects?
I'll just repeat this:
Can you name one scientific theory that everyone agrees on? I can't. There are hot disagreements about how to interpret quantum theory. Should we conclude from that fact that quantum theory lacks any objective aspects?
My spidersense tells me that you disagree with me about beauty not being intrinsic.
Yes. Your argument that beauty is not "intrinsic" because people disagree about what is or isn't beautiful is fallacious: the fact that people disagree on what is beautiful or isn't beautiful does not imply that beauty is subjective. The SEP article provides several good arguments against the purely subjectivist stance.
Says the guy who provides no logical argument that beauty is objective.
The fact that there's wide disagreement about what is beautiful, by how
much, what is ugly, & by how much does indeed show subjectivity.
If beauty is a property inherent in the object or system, rather than the mind
of the beholder, then this property would exist independently of the observer.
If observed, then it would also be the same for every observer.
An example is the mass of a hydrogen atom...
- The property exists even if there's no one observing it.
- Different observers all come up with the same mas when measured.
Now, let's consider what an intrinsic property is.
Ref....
Intrinsic and extrinsic properties (philosophy) - Wikipedia
How do you define beauty?
How is it measured?
What is your reasoning that it's objective, ie, a property
which is inherent in a thing, independent of the observer?
Last edited:
Koldo
Outstanding Member
I was suggesting one possible way to prove that something is objective.
If, essentially, everyone agrees on perceiving something in the same way, that gives credence to it being objective. This, of course, doesn't entail that for something to be objective this must be a requirement. The issue then becomes how you deduce beauty to be objective if you have no method to figure out where it is.
The way I approach it is to ask if I think a different species, from a different planet (say) would b to find the same things 'beautiful'. So, while I think that other species would be able to verify properties of iron atoms, I do NOT think it likely AT ALL that they would see the same things as beautiful. For that matter, why would have the same range of color vision or acoustic responses? Would I expect them to find sunsets beautiful? maybe, but maybe not.
So, no, I don't expect beauty is some property of objects. It is more a property of *us* and how we respond to those objects.
This is also explainable by humans sharing the same evolutionary origins.
So we prefer savannah landscape paintings over other environments.
Mountain gorillas would likely find them ugly compared to cool rainforests.
And I was thinking about how houseflies probably find rotten meat to be beautiful and dung beetles find a heap of elephant dung to be quite attractive.
You don't?
So you would claim that since there is wide disagreement about how to interpret the quantum wave function, that removes any "credence to it being objective".