Main Question or Discussion Point
what is it?
Asked like a true math nerd.Originally posted by loop quantum gravity
so questions like is this theory aestetic or is this equation beautiful are a concern to the theory?
This is a complex question.Originally posted by loop quantum gravity
what is it?
Is this an invitation for me to to continue by beauty is or can be intrinsic.Originally posted by quantumcarl
This is a complex question.
As with beauty, value is in the eye of the beholder.
Intrinsic values... anyone!???
I read a bit of that article and skipped down a bit to the hedonism section and read that too before deciding that I dislike the authors POV/philosophy.Originally posted by Guybrush Threepwood
I don't know. here's some serious definition...I was just reading that
the question isnt the complex one but the subject in question might be.Originally posted by quantumcarl
This is a complex question.
Value and beauty are subtopics of virtue. We are the belief makers, and virtue is its own reward.Originally posted by Royce
Is this an invitation for me to to continue by beauty is or can be intrinsic.
My point is/was that unlike the falling tree in the woods not making any sound.... Beauty remains after the beholder leaves. Nothing changes and when another beholder comes by s/he too can see and appreciate the beauty.
By the way I thing "value" should be a subtopic of quality. Value implys usefulness and cost or desire to own or partake. It I think is strictly in the eye or wallet. Mankind values something and give it value. Quality of which beauty is a type of quality is or can be intrinsic. IMHO
Can this then mean that virue is intrinsic? Humans are not the only ones who appreciate beauty or virtue. Does this too make it intrinsic? If beauty is appreciated by multiple species doesn't this imply that it is not just us that bestow the virtue of beauty upon something or that beauty is strictly in the eye of the beholder?Originally posted by wuliheron
Value and beauty are subtopics of virtue. We are the belief makers, and virtue is its own reward.
It is this feature of this topic that makes it so facinating to me. It is not, to me at least, not that God created the universe and so it is or must be beautiful. It is that beauty (virtue) is intrinsic as a characteristic of the thing itself whether it be an object, music, words of thoughts. The fact that we are human or at least sufficiently developed mentally to be able to recognize and appreciate beauty is testimony to our intelligence and developement not the other way around.
That is why this subject is so hard for people, not because it is intrinsically more complex than others, but because it cuts to the bone.
Do you have examples of beauty being appreciated by multiple species? The only example I can come up with is King Kong liking Melany Griffith.Originally posted by Royce
If beauty is appreciated by multiple species doesn't this imply that it is not just us that bestow the virtue of beauty upon something or that beauty is strictly in the eye of the beholder?
Its a tough topic but... I think for the most part if not the whole part, virtue is a subtopic of potential.Originally posted by Royce
In my day it was Fay Wray. I have been trying to think of a good example that was at least defendable. I thought that maybe I have overstated my case. I have seen animals, dogs and cats smell flowers and look at them for long periods and this is what I had in mind but I can't defend it as obviously admiring beauty though it seemed that that was what they were doing at the time.
I recently watched a program about a captive young female gorilla that had been taught sign language. She looked over photographs of captive male Gorillas. The point was for her to pick a potential mate. She barely glanced at most of them but came upon one that "caught her fancy". She would not even look a the rest of the photos. The story has a happy ending in that the choosen male was brought to her and put into her compound. She was the aggressor as she already knew that he was the one that she wanted. They eventually bred and she had a baby gorilla and they all lived happily ever after. Is this a good example of another species reognizing and appreciating beauty, at least what is beauty to a gorilla?
Another example that I thought of was birds and various mammels, pack rats, etc, collecting shiny objects that are of no use to them. Or the sex specific colors and markings of various birds and animals. They may be beautiful to us but is it beauty to them? If not why spend all that time and energy to have those markings and to show them off so predominately? I don't know if any of these are really valid examples but they are what I had in mind when I wrote it. Can anybody help me with this, come up with better examples?
It is worth noting here that you could make the exact same argument for colors existing in nature, although it is widely accepted in philosophy that colors do not exist in objective reality but rather are mental representational modes (subjective qualities) for perceiving that reality. The same could easily go for beauty-- in fact I think it makes more sense to think of it this way.Originally posted by Royce
We all seem to agree to a point. That point is IMO where the recognition and appreciation of beauty for what ever reason or cause is in fact seperate from the characteristic itself of whatever we are sensing i.e. seeing hearing tasting feeling etc. The appreciation is subjective. The characteristics that make the object beautiful to us are intrinsic, objective and material. Can we call those characteristics beauty, quality, virtue in and of themselves? I think so. They, the characteristics do not change or go away when we no longer look at the object. When we come back or another person comes along those characteristics that make the object beautiful are still there to be appreciated all over again.
Strictly logically speaking, I'd have to say it comes from us folks. I mean, you can easily conceive of a creature who doesn't find the laws of physics (or an acclaimed work of art, or whatever) particularly beautiful (I imagine a large chunk of our own population belongs to this category). So we have two opposing opinions or sensibilities on the matter. To say one is more right than the other, I think, is a bit arbitrary and maybe even elitist ("I'm seeing things how they really are, and if you don't see the same thing, you're just fooling yourself"). I still haven't seen any really compelling arguments that beauty is an actual property of reality, outside of consciousness.Admittedly I am a romantic. To me the thing that makes something beautiful is not our ability to see it but a property of the thing itself and thus it is intrinsic. Is a scientific formula or law elegant and beautiful of itself, of its own properties, or is it simply because we choose to call those properties beautiful and elegant? That I think is the crux of the matter.
It doesn't have to be so base. Reducing beauty in the way you describe is of course just as shortsighted as saying love is 'just' an evolutionary tool-- for us humans who experience it, love has its own intrinsic value, evolution be damned. Beauty, too, can still be a wonderful thing that has its own value within the context of consciousness.I choose to be a romantic and choose to believe that there is real beauty in the universe not just something that I deem to be beautiful because it reminds me of something to eat or procreate with.
We can call anything any label we want. That does not engender the object with the attribute we perceive it to have."The characteristics that make the object beautiful to us are intrinsic, objective and material. Can we call those characteristics beauty, quality, virtue in and of themselves?"