Is Beauty Objective? - Get Exam Help Now!

[moving finger]

none can truly/absolutely prove anything to anyone.

Proof is proof. Absence of proof is absence of proof. To add the adjective "absolute" to the word proof does not add anything in terms of meaning. Unless you could elaborate the difference between "proof" (simpliciter) and "proof absolute"?

Our very existence is absolute to us, but relative to others.

All I can say in reply is that you would seem to have a very "relative" definition of absolute, which is peculiar to yourself.

If our existence is "absolute" to us BUT relative to others, then this simply makes our existence relative (ie it depends on one's perspective). To say that our existence is "absolute" but only under particular conditions implies a rather strange meaning for the word "absolute".

Could you perhaps define what you mean precisely by the term "absolute", since it seems you disagree with my suggested definition?

 

[Boy@n]

Proof is proof. Absence of proof is absence of proof. To add the adjective "absolute" to the word proof does not add anything in terms of meaning. Unless you could elaborate the difference between "proof" (simpliciter) and "proof absolute"?

"Absolute proof" would be describing something which is fundamentally, ultimately and always true in all possible dimensions and realms.

"Proof" describes something which works WITHIN observed realm, not necessarily in others. (Even our own reality is too strange to comprehend with common sense, for example, on quantum level time can go backwards, things do stuff which is impossible in our "normal" level of perceived reality.)

E.g. All I absolutely know is statement "I am", all else could be speculation, and dependent on my awareness, my physical senses and my mental abilities. Do you exist too? Well, you surely seem to, yet, I cannot know with absolute certainty, or at least, with such degree of certainty as I know my own existence, since I'd have to be you too! Why? You might as well be a simulated object in a simulated Universe.

All I can say in reply is that you would seem to have a very "relative" definition of absolute, which is peculiar to yourself.

Well, nature of reality is peculiar ;)

Let me define words "relative" and "absolute" in regard of awareness, since all that matters in the end is being aware of things and self. Each of us is at certain state of awareness, which is what makes us unique in the first place, and secondly, our bodies and brains are very alike but also different in structure, thus, we are unique due that too. So, our current state of awareness is our "maximal" state of awareness, we CANNOT know more or better than that, so, in each moment of our life we do our "best" (of what we know, even if we lie it's still our "best"). Thus, we are "absolute" to ourselves and whole of existence due to our current "maximal" state of awareness. And at the same time we are "relative" to others, because others are in different states of awareness and knowingness. Nevertheless, our own "absoluteness" can still change with changes of awareness, our old absoluteness becomes relative to our current new absoluteness.

I know what I "want" to say, but I don't know how to say this better, so perhaps everyone could understand it. My knowledge is absolute to my current self (as is yours to current yourself), yet, it's relative to others!

 

[moving finger]

"Absolute proof" would be something which is fundamentally, ultimately and always true in all possible dimensions and states of existence.

"Proof" would be something which works WITHIN observed realm, not necessarily in others.

A proof is a demonstration that a particular argument is valid.

All arguments have premises. What you call an "observed realm" is presumably one of these premises?

Demonstrating the validity of an argument depends on the premises. As long as the premises remain unchanged a valid argument remains valid. Change the premises, and the argument may no longer be valid.

This applies to all "proofs". I don't see how one can have two different classes of proof as you suggest, one which works even when the premises are changed, and one which does not?

To illustrate what you mean, could you perhaps give examples of what you consider to be an "absolute proof" and a "non-absolute proof"?

Let me define words "relative" and "absolute" in regard of awareness, since all that matters in the end is being aware of things and self. Each of us is at certain state of awareness, which is what makes us unique in the first place, and secondly, our bodies and brains are very alike but also different in structure, thus, we are unique due that too. So, our current state of awareness is our "maximal" state of awareness, we CANNOT know more or better than that, so, in each moment of our existence we do our "best" (of what we know, even if we lie it's still our "best"). Thus, we are "absolute" to ourselves and whole of existence due to our current "maximal" state of awareness. And at the same time we are "relative" to others, because other in different states of awareness. Yet, our own "absoluteness" changes with changes of awareness.

As I said, this seems to be a peculiar use of the terms "absolute" and "relative". You are of course entitled to define your terms as you wish, but the rest of us then need to be very careful in trying to interpret what you say when using these terms.

My knowledge is absolute to my current self (as is yours to current yourself), yet, it's relative to others!

Which means (in my view of the world) that your knowledge is simply relative (subjective), with no "absolute" (objective) aspect about it at all. Your personal knowledge depends on your unique frame of reference - and that is just what relative means (to most people). It is the antithesis of absolute (the way that the word "absolute" is normally used by most people).

 

[Boy@n]

Which means (in my view of the world) that your knowledge is simply relative (subjective), with no "absolute" (objective) aspect about it at all. Your personal knowledge depends on your unique frame of reference - and that is just what relative means (to most people). It is the antithesis of absolute (the way that the word "absolute" is normally used by most people).

"Exactly", none of us has any absolute answers/knowledge for others, we "just" have a lot of usable and valuable answers/knowledge. And the most important knowledge of them all is one gained through our personal experience of our existence and ourselves -- and that's absolute to each of us while it can be (and usually is) relative to others.

Will return to our discussion tomorrow. Have a great day!

 

[moving finger]

"Exactly", none of us has any absolute answers/knowledge for others, we "just" have a lot of usable and valuable answers/knowledge. And the most important knowledge of them all is one gained through our personal experience of our existence and ourselves -- and that's absolute to each of us while it can be (and usually is) relative to others.

Will return to our discussion tomorrow. Have a great day!

"absolute to each of us" is once again an oxymoron - it's a phrase like "deafening silence".

"absolute to each of us" contains within itself the explicit reference to an arbitrary standard (ie what is being measured is being measured relative to myself) - which is the antithesis of absolute.

Of course you may use language however you wish - I am just trying to point out the incongruity of your expression when viewed according to the normally accepted meanings of the words you choose.

 

[Boy@n]

Since we are living within space-time, then the way I use word absolute is accordance with that. (True absoluteness is not bond by space or time.)

Something can be absolute at certain period in time -- like, what we do is absolute to us, because that's exactly and the ONLY thing we know to do, until we change it, while at the same time it's relative to others, who can see it differently in that same period of time.



And let's not forget, I was using/describing words "absolute" and "relative" in regard of our state of beingness, which defiens perception of beauty.

There are countless states of beingness, from one which is not-aware to one which is ultimately aware. We as humans are somewhere in between. And, current state of beingness of each of us is absolute to our own state, yet relative to other states.

I'd appreciate if you wouldn't put so much focus on words but on that which I am conveying.

In short, in eyes of perceiver beauty is objective/absolute. Beaty doesn't exist without awareness of it.

Asking if beauty is objective is same as asking if awareness is objective. It's kinda silly question to ask, but if you have to ask, then yes, awareness cannot be not objective.

 

[moving finger]

I'd appreciate if you wouldn't put so much focus on words but on that which I am conveying.

In short, in eyes of perceiver beauty is objective/absolute.

Boy@n, I understand you want me to pay attention to what you "mean" rather than what you "say" - but I cannot do that if you continue to use the wrong words in trying to convey what you "mean"...

If you think the words themselves are not so important (as you claim), then we can solve the problem immediately by you simply dropping your use of the word "absolute" in what you are trying to describe.

If something is "absolute" then it is, by definition, independent of an arbitrary standard of measurement. If something is judged "in the eyes of a perceiver", but the same thing may be judged differently by another perceiver, then by definition that thing is NOT absolute.

No matter how much you want to twist things around, you cannot make something absolute when it is not just to fit your personal preferences.

Sorry.