Is Beauty Objective? - Get Exam Help Now!

  • Thread starter beccalicious87
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Beauty
In summary: Expectation? belief? in order to be meaningful.In summary, the question is about whether or not beauty is objective. The author defines beauty as a sense of harmony of parts of a unit and holds that it can be objective. They go on to say that an idea can be beautiful, and that beauty is not only in the eye of the beholder.
  • #36
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.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
Boy@n said:
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.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
767
  • General Discussion
Replies
14
Views
897
Replies
2
Views
481
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
721
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
18
Views
1K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
2
Replies
57
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Back
Top