Thursday makes you all super dizzy while talking about Beauty.
Man, he left out a lot of stuff from other cuts. (More opportunity for discussion!)
4 comments:
Monday
said...
The only reason I would think that beauty is subjective is that I haven't really come across an objective definition that satisfied me. We haven't really been able to define beauty, and our attempts don't sound very good. I think I've heard one that said something like "Being true" or "alignment with God" or... do you understand what I mean? Anyway, it seems like no objective definition comes close to satisfying my subjective perceptions.
But I don't think anything is really subjective, so I think it's more a case of poor definitions/poor perception.
I think that the ability to distinguish beauty has to do with how much experience you have judging between things. In some ways, beauty can be measurable: maybe the beauty that comes from perfection of form can be objectively judged. And some people have less-developed tastes. (is that implying that there is a degree of objectivity even if beauty is a "matter of taste"? hmm)
I'm not sure that everyone can even agree on extremes, though. For example... hard metal music. Some people can consider that extremely unendurable, others, as a meaningful and excellent art form. And yet... I do think that people agree on very beautiful things in nature, like a sunset, or a flower. So maybe some things can be innately understood to be beautiful, and other things depend on the experiences you've had, or criteria you've been exposed to.
I think people can be trained to think an ordinary thing is beautiful. I'm wondering about people being trained to think an ugly thing really is beautiful: how could we know that it really is ugly? If we can be hypothetical and assume we can objectively tell the difference, I think people recognizing beauty in an ugly thing would have lost the definition of what beauty is. I think that the concept of "beauty" would be psychologically changed, not that an ugly thing really appeals to their senses.
I don't completely understand everything I just wrote. :P
" (is that implying that there is a degree of objectivity even if beauty is a "matter of taste"? hmm)" . . . maybe taste itself is a faulty of measuring something objective. Like Monday said, maybe there is no subjectivity at all. Like some things "taste" (literally) better than others, and our tasting them is trying to apprehend their tastiness.
About people agreeing on extremes: . . . I think that not everyone is going to agree on extremes, but not everything agrees on the extremes of morality either, that doesn't change whether or not they are objective.
About the confusing psychology thing: . . . I think that makes sense. What I think . . . is that there is an absolute beauty, and we have some idea of what it is. But depending on what society we live in we ARE trained to appreciate some things rather than others. And that training can be wrong. And in that wrong training we can "lose" our sense or definition of beauty. I"m not really sure if "pleasing to the senses" is a correct definition of beauty or not . . . hum.
A Year Of Questions is a project begun on March 22, 2010, by seven teens who want to be better at asking questions and articulating answers. This blog exists to make it easier to discuss these questions (because a 500 character limit on YouTube comments is rather limiting). Enjoy!
4 comments:
The only reason I would think that beauty is subjective is that I haven't really come across an objective definition that satisfied me. We haven't really been able to define beauty, and our attempts don't sound very good. I think I've heard one that said something like "Being true" or "alignment with God" or... do you understand what I mean? Anyway, it seems like no objective definition comes close to satisfying my subjective perceptions.
But I don't think anything is really subjective, so I think it's more a case of poor definitions/poor perception.
I think that the ability to distinguish beauty has to do with how much experience you have judging between things. In some ways, beauty can be measurable: maybe the beauty that comes from perfection of form can be objectively judged. And some people have less-developed tastes. (is that implying that there is a degree of objectivity even if beauty is a "matter of taste"? hmm)
I'm not sure that everyone can even agree on extremes, though. For example... hard metal music. Some people can consider that extremely unendurable, others, as a meaningful and excellent art form. And yet... I do think that people agree on very beautiful things in nature, like a sunset, or a flower. So maybe some things can be innately understood to be beautiful, and other things depend on the experiences you've had, or criteria you've been exposed to.
I think people can be trained to think an ordinary thing is beautiful. I'm wondering about people being trained to think an ugly thing really is beautiful: how could we know that it really is ugly? If we can be hypothetical and assume we can objectively tell the difference, I think people recognizing beauty in an ugly thing would have lost the definition of what beauty is. I think that the concept of "beauty" would be psychologically changed, not that an ugly thing really appeals to their senses.
I don't completely understand everything I just wrote. :P
" (is that implying that there is a degree of objectivity even if beauty is a "matter of taste"? hmm)" . . . maybe taste itself is a faulty of measuring something objective. Like Monday said, maybe there is no subjectivity at all. Like some things "taste" (literally) better than others, and our tasting them is trying to apprehend their tastiness.
About people agreeing on extremes: . . . I think that not everyone is going to agree on extremes, but not everything agrees on the extremes of morality either, that doesn't change whether or not they are objective.
About the confusing psychology thing: . . . I think that makes sense. What I think . . . is that there is an absolute beauty, and we have some idea of what it is. But depending on what society we live in we ARE trained to appreciate some things rather than others. And that training can be wrong. And in that wrong training we can "lose" our sense or definition of beauty. I"m not really sure if "pleasing to the senses" is a correct definition of beauty or not . . . hum.
I'm happy this video has some discussion to it.
Two things I forgot to say last time.
1. Your hair.
2. The Objectivity Room!
Post a Comment