Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Logic & First Principles, 14: Are beauty, truth, knowledge, goodness and justice merely matters of subjective opinions? (Preliminary thoughts.)

Categories
Culture
Logic and Reason
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

We live in a Kant-haunted age, where the “ugly gulch” between our inner world of appearances and judgements and the world of things in themselves is often seen as unbridgeable. Of course, there are many other streams of thought that lead to widespread relativism and subjectivism, but the ugly gulch concept is in some ways emblematic. Such trends influence many commonly encountered views, most notably our tendency to hold that being a matter of taste, beauty lies solely in the eye of the beholder.

And yet, we find the world-famous bust of Nefertiti:

The famous bust of Nefertiti, found in Thutmose’s workshop (notice, how subtle smiles will play a role in portraits of beautiful women)

Compare, 3400 years later; notice the symmetry and focal power of key features for Guinean model, Sira Kante :


Sira Kante

And then, ponder the highly formal architecture of the Taj Mahal:

The Taj Mahal

ADDED: To help drive home the point, here is a collage of current architectural eyesores:

Current Eyesores

Added, Mar 23 — Vernal Equinox: The oddly shaped building on London’s skyline is called “Walkie-Talkie” and due to its curved surface creates a heating hazard at the height of summer on a nearby street — yet another aspect of sound design that was overlooked (this one, ethical):

Louvre as seen from inside the Pei pyramid

Since it has come up I add the Louvre’s recent addition of a Pyramid (which apparently echoes a similar temporary monument placed there c. 1839 to honour the dead in an 1830 uprising). Notice, below, how symmetric it is in the context of the museum; where triangular elements are a longstanding part of the design as may be seen from the structure below the central dome and above many windows. Observe the balance between overall framework and detailed elements that relieve the boredom of large, flat blank walls. Historically, also, as Notre Dame’s South Rose Window so aptly illustrates, windows and light have been part of the design and function of French architecture. Notice, how it fits the symmetry and is not overwhelmingly large, though of course those who objected that it is not simply aligned with the classical design of the building have a point:

Yet again, the similarly strongly patterned South Rose Window at Notre Dame (with its obvious focal point, as well as how the many portraits give delightful detail and variety amidst the symmetry) :

Notre Dame, South Rose Window

Compare, patterning, variety and focus with subtle asymmetry in part of “Seahorse Valley” for the Mandelbrot set:

Seahorse Valley zoom, Mandelbrot set

I add, let us pause to see the power of spirals as a pattern, tying in the Fibonacci sequence and thus also the Golden Ratio, Phi, 1.618 . . . (where concentric circles as in the Rose Window, have much of the same almost hypnotic effect and where we see spirals in the seahorse valley also):

Here, let us observe a least squares fit logarithmic spiral superposed on a cut Nautilus shell:

Let us also note, Da Vinci’s Vitruvian Man, as an illustration of patterns and proportions, noting the impact of the dynamic effect of the many S- and J-curve sculptural forms of the curved shapes in the human figure:

Note, a collage of “typical” human figure proportions:

Contrast the striking abstract forms (echoing and evoking human or animal figures), asymmetric patterning, colour balances, contrasts and fractal-rich cloudy details in the Eagle Nebula:

The Eagle Nebula

Also, the fractal patterning and highlighted focus shown by a partially sunlit Grand Canyon:

Grand Canyon

And then, with refreshed eyes, ponder Mona Lisa, noticing how da Vinci’s composition draws together all the above elements:

Mona Lisa — the most famous portrait
A modern reconstruction of what Mona Lisa may have looked like on completion

Let me also add, in a deliberately reduced scale, a reconstruction of what the portrait may have originally looked like. Over 400 years have passed, varnish has aged and yellowed, poplar wood has responded to its environment, some pigments have lost their colour, there have apparently been over-zealous reconstructions. Of course, the modern painter is not in Da Vinci’s class.

However, such a reconstruction helps us see the story the painting subtly weaves.

A wealthy young lady sits in a three-quarters pose . . . already a subtle asymmetry, in an ornate armchair, on an elevated balcony overlooking a civilisation-tamed landscape; she represents the upper class of the community that has tamed the land. Notice, how a serpentine, S-curved road just below her right shoulder ties her to the landscape and how a ridge line at the base of her neck acts as a secondary horizon and lead in. Also, the main horizon line (at viewer’s eye-level) is a little below her eyes; it is relieved by more ridges. She wears bright red, softened with dark green and translucent layers. Her reddish brown hair is similarly veiled. As a slight double-chin and well-fed hands show, she is not an exemplar of the extreme thinness equals beauty school of thought. The right hand is brought over to the left and superposed, covering her midriff — one almost suspects, she may be an expectant mother. Her eyes (note the restored highlights) look to her left . . . a subtle asymmetry that communicates lifelike movement so verisimilitude, as if she is smiling subtly with the painter or the viewer — this is not a smirk or sneer. And of course the presence of an invited narrative adds to the aesthetic power of the composition.

These classics (old and new alike) serve to show how stable a settled judgement of beauty can be. Which raises a question: what is beauty? Like unto that: are there principles of aesthetic judgement that give a rational framework, setting up objective knowledge of beauty? And, how do beauty, goodness, justice and truth align?

These are notoriously hard questions, probing aesthetics and ethics, the two main branches of axiology, the philosophical study of the valuable.

Where, yes, beauty is recognised to be valuable, even as ethics is clearly tied to moral value and goodness and truth are also valuable, worthy to be prized. It is unsurprising that the Taj Mahal was built as a mausoleum by a King to honour his beautiful, deeply loved wife (who had died in childbirth).

AmHD is a good place to start: beauty is “[a] quality or combination of qualities that gives pleasure to the mind or senses and is often associated with properties such as harmony of form or color, proportion, authenticity, and originality. “

Wikipedia first suggests that beauty is:

a property or characteristic of an animal, idea, object, person or place that provides a perceptual experience of pleasure or satisfaction. Beauty is studied as part of aesthetics, culture, social psychology, philosophy and sociology. An “ideal beauty” is an entity which is admired, or possesses features widely attributed to beauty in a particular culture, for perfection. Ugliness is the opposite of beauty.

The experience of “beauty” often involves an interpretation of some entity as being in balance and harmony with nature, which may lead to feelings of attraction and emotional well-being. Because this can be a subjective experience, it is often said that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” However, given the empirical observations of things that are considered beautiful often aligning with the aforementioned nature and health thereof, beauty has been stated to have levels of objectivity as well

It then continues (unsurprisingly) that ” [t]here is also evidence that perceptions of beauty are determined by natural selection; that things, aspects of people and landscapes considered beautiful are typically found in situations likely to give enhanced survival of the perceiving human’s genes.” Thus we find the concepts of unconscious programming and perception driven by blind evolutionary forces. The shadow of the ugly gulch lurks just beneath the surface.

Can these differences be resolved?

At one level, at least since Plato’s dialogue Hippias Major, it has been well known that beauty is notoriously hard to define or specify in terms of readily agreed principles. There definitely is subjectivity, but is there also objectivity? If one says no, why then are there classics?

Further, if no, then why could we lay out a cumulative pattern across time, art-form, nature and theme above that then appears exquisitely fused together in a portrait that just happens to be the most famous, classic portrait in the world?

If so, what are such and can they constitute a coherent framework that could justify the claim to objective knowledge of aesthetic value?

Hard questions, hard as there are no easy, simple readily agreed answers. And yet, the process of addressing a hard puzzle where our intuitions tell us something but it seems to be forever just beyond our grasp, is itself highly instructive. For, we know in part.

Dewitt H. Parker, in opening his 1920 textbook, Principles of Aesthetics, aptly captures the paradox:

Although some feeling for beauty is perhaps universal among men, the
same cannot be said of the understanding of beauty. The average man,
who may exercise considerable taste in personal adornment, in the
decoration of the home, or in the choice of poetry and painting, is
at a loss when called upon to tell what art is or to explain why he
calls one thing “beautiful” and another “ugly.” Even the artist and
the connoisseur, skilled to produce or accurate in judgment, are often
wanting in clear and consistent ideas about their own works or
appreciations. Here, as elsewhere, we meet the contrast between feeling
and doing, on the one hand, and knowing, on the other.

Of course, as we saw above, reflective (and perhaps, aided) observation of case studies can support an inductive process that tries to identify principles and design patterns of effective artistic or natural composition that reliably excite the beauty response. That can be quite suggestive, as we already saw:

  • symmetry,
  • balance,
  • pattern (including rhythms in space and/or time [e.g. percussion, dance]),
  • proportion (including the golden ratio phi, 1.618 etc)
  • unity or harmony (with tension and resolution), highlighting contrast,
    variety and detail,
  • subtle asymmetry,
  • focus or vision or theme,
  • verisimilitude (insight that shows/focusses a credible truth/reality)
  • echoing of familiar forms (including scaled, fractal self-symmetry),
  • skilled combination or composition
  • and more.

We may see this with greater richness by taking a side-light from literature, drama and cinema, by using the premise that art tells a story, drawing us into a fresh vision of the world, ourselves, possibilities:

Already, it is clear that beauty has in it organising principles and that coherence with variety in composition indicates that there is indeed organisation, which brings to bear purpose and thus a way in for reflective, critical discussion. From this, we reach to development of higher quality of works and growing knowledge that guides skill and intuition without stifling creativity or originality. So, credibly, there is artistic — or even, aesthetic — knowledge that turns on rational principles, which may rightly be deemed truths.

Where, as we are rational, responsible, significantly free , morally governed creatures, the ethical must also intersect.

Where also, art has a visionary, instructive function that can strongly shape a culture. So, nobility, purity and virtue are inextricably entangled with the artistic: the perverse, ill-advised, unjust or corrupting (consider here, pornography or the like, or literature, drama and cinema that teach propaganda or the techniques of vice) are issues to be faced.

And, after our initial journey, we are back home, but in a different way. We may — if we choose — begin to see how beauty, truth, knowledge, goodness and justice may all come together, and how beauty in particular is more than merely subjective taste or culturally induced preference or disguised population survival. Where also, art reflecting rational principles, purposes and value points to artist. END

PS: To document the impact of the beauty of ordinary things (we have got de-sensitised) here are people who thanks to filtering glasses are seeing (enough of) colour for the first time:

Similarly, here are people hearing for the first time:

This will be a bit more controversial, but observe these Korean plastic surgery outcomes:

Comments
KF,
On Phi and attractive human faces
Clearly humans find faces with certain proportions to be beautiful. I'm not sure I believe those proportions have much to do with the golden ratio, however. There is a lot of humbug around phi you know. I suspect if humans' heads looked like hammerhead sharks we would believe ourselves to be the most beautiful creatures around, just the same.daveS
March 14, 2019
March
03
Mar
14
14
2019
05:45 PM
5
05
45
PM
PDT
KF,
Likewise, do numbers have reality beyond our labels, operations on imagined collections, etc, are they embedded in the framework for a world to exist?
I do believe that numbers are real and exist independently of their minds. For example, any theorem in Peano arithmetic which we can prove could be proved in every possible world. In that sense mathematics is 100% objective. I also think I might have a very hard time convincing anyone of that.
Is there an objective shared world that we participate in (as opposed to say some sort of Matrix-like simulation world), on what grounds?
Another very tough question. I provisionally assume there is, based on Occam's Razor. It does seem more parsimonious to assume the existence of an objective shared world rather than a Matrix-like simulation.
What accessible evidence or argument would lead you to accept that there is a reality to beauty beyond agreement within a subject or between some circle of subjects or other
That's a good question. I don't know that there is such a thing. It's a difficult task you have chosen, IMHO.daveS
March 14, 2019
March
03
Mar
14
14
2019
05:41 PM
5
05
41
PM
PDT
F/N: On Phi and attractive human faces: https://www.goldennumber.net/meisner-beauty-guide-golden-ratio-facial-analysis/ KFkairosfocus
March 14, 2019
March
03
Mar
14
14
2019
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT
DS, I have pointed out that the issue on objectivity is not intersubjective agreement or subjectivity (only subjects can know) but warrant. In this case we have a widely recognised (across time and culture, styles differ but these sorts of patterns are consistent), named phenomenon -- not typical marks of delusions or ill-founded ideological claims. It is associated with certain aesthetics principles which are in many cases mathematically addressable (e.g. symmetry, harmony) and we can see the effects on for instance faces or buildings as such principles are fulfilled or not fulfilled. In this case, with billion dollar investments in proof. Observable, in significant part mathematically accessible, go/no go demonstrations seen. If after this you still will not accept that there is significant objective warrant that aesthetic principles are objectively warranted and give us an objective understanding of beauty commonly used by painters, decorators, architects, etc, then I do not think the issue is on the side of adequate warrant, it is that there is an underlying implicit influence by nominalistic views in this regard. There are a lot of other things that are warranted in much the same way that we routinely accept. I suggest a good cross check would be does evil have reality beyond subjective opinion and agreement in some community or other? Likewise, do numbers have reality beyond our labels, operations on imagined collections, etc, are they embedded in the framework for a world to exist? What would it mean for a scientific theory to have objective status? Is there an objective shared world that we participate in (as opposed to say some sort of Matrix-like simulation world), on what grounds? What accessible evidence or argument would lead you to accept that there is a reality to beauty beyond agreement within a subject or between some circle of subjects or other, e.g. would the eyesore buildings be beautiful if somehow a significant circle were to say so? Or have you reduced beauty to, in accord with the tastes of some reference group or other. Etc. KFkairosfocus
March 14, 2019
March
03
Mar
14
14
2019
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT
KF, For my part, I am not denying that beauty could be at least partially objective. Rather, I don't find your argument persuasive. As I've said several times, I find your argument completely consistent with the proposition "beauty is (merely) intersubjective".daveS
March 14, 2019
March
03
Mar
14
14
2019
04:45 AM
4
04
45
AM
PDT
F/N: I added to the OP on proportions, also putting in spirals and linked phenomena in the sequence of cases, including now Da Vinci's Vitruvian Man. KFkairosfocus
March 14, 2019
March
03
Mar
14
14
2019
12:57 AM
12
12
57
AM
PDT
DS & H: Having slept a bit, let me now follow up. In effect, what I think we are seeing is the effect of a subtle controlling worldview concept, nominalism -- which is of course an issue in Mathematics, hence my comparative. Namely, the idea that, per Wiki as handy reference, can be summed up:
In metaphysics, nominalism is a philosophical view which denies the existence of universals and abstract objects, but affirms the existence of general or abstract terms and predicates.[1] There are at least two main versions of nominalism. One version denies the existence of universals – things that can be instantiated or exemplified by many particular things (e.g., strength, humanity). The other version specifically denies the existence of abstract objects – objects that do not exist in space and time.[2] Most nominalists have held that only physical particulars in space and time are real, and that universals exist only post res, that is, subsequent to particular things.[3] However, some versions of nominalism hold that some particulars are abstract entities (e.g., numbers), while others are concrete entities – entities that do exist in space and time (e.g., pillars, snakes, bananas).
Enc Brit, in discussing specifically Mathematical Nominalism (vs Mathematical Platonism), similarly summarises:
Nominalism is the view that mathematical objects such as numbers and sets and circles do not really exist. Nominalists do admit that there are such things as piles of three eggs and ideas of the number 3 in people’s heads, but they do not think that any of these things is the number 3. Of course, when nominalists deny that the number 3 is a physical or mental object, they are in agreement with Platonists. They admit that if there were any such thing as the number 3, then it would be an abstract object; but, unlike mathematical Platonists, they do not believe in abstract objects, and so they do not believe in numbers . . . . [T]here are essentially five alternatives to Platonism. If one does not want to claim that mathematics is about nonphysical, nonmental, nonspatiotemporal objects, then one must to claim either (1) that mathematics is about concrete mental objects in people’s heads (psychologism); or (2) that it is about concrete physical objects (physicalism); or (3) that, contrary to first appearances, mathematical sentences do not make claims about objects at all (paraphrase nominalism); or (4) that, while mathematics does purport to be about abstract objects, there are in fact no such things, and so mathematics is not literally true (fictionalism); or (5) that mathematical sentences purport to be about abstract objects, and there are no such things as abstract objects, and yet these sentences are still literally true (neo-Meinongianism).
On such a view, there is no such thing as a nature or an intelligible, rational principle that pervades circumstances and can be extended to predict or control reality. This, of course, includes not only abstracta such as necessarily existing, world-framing structures and quantities such as numbers (N, Z, Q, R, C etc), but even more obviously such an emotive reaction laden idea as aesthetic principles of beauty. In effect, laws of concrete or universal nature are dead as reality has been atomised and dispersed into only the particular concrete entities. And, apologies that language is forcing us to talk as though such things are real. Tame it by holding such to be fictions we hold, shaped by our culture. That is, we only have useful fictions, labels, simulation models that may be computable, otherwise, we are running an imaginative shadow-show drama in our heads. Similarly, abstracta are fictions, at best labels for imaginary entities in our models. All of which are of course culturally influenced, likely with the concept lurking, that Western Culture's influence is particularly suspect and inferior or oppressive. And so forth. The effect of such controlling ideas is that they shape what we find plausible or obvious and what we we reject or dismiss out of hand. We are back at the problem of the crooked yardstick and the challenge of responding to a plumb-line. However, it is patent that Nominalism is self-referentially incoherent, as universals and abstracta are inescapable in our thinking and reasoning, including in stating the claim that roughly runs: [we know, per some warrant that] there are no universals or abstracta, only names for collectives we impose. In effect, it affirms what it would deny. It is inescapably incoherent. A well-known logical consequence (something nominalism suspects) of incoherence is logical explosion, loss of the power of the principle that what is true only implies what else is true. But again, truth is yet another abstractum to be suspected and tamed into in effect some sort of operationalist and/or pragmatist redefinition or the like. Yet another useful fiction, and certainly not, the accurate description of "reality" whatever that is. It all depends on what the meaning of "is" is. But isn't the claim, there are no universals or abstracta, just names we impose precisely a universal, abstract truth-claim, in effect a candidate foundational and intelligible, controlling law or truth of reality? In short, a fail. Likewise, we can see that those who are locked into nominalism will suspect the notion that there can be or are, intelligible rational aesthetics principles tied to mathematically shaped properties such as symmetry, fractal self-similar scaling, subtle asymmetries, proportions of harmony,
[--> let me add that explicitly in the OP, I forgot! Therein lieth phi 1.618 etc, with Fibonacci, spirals, Marquadt masks, the golden section, the power of pentagons, Vitruvian Man, da Vinci's proportions and geometries and much more . . . ]
coherence, patterns, etc. That will then extend into the specific mathematical result for music that octaves tend to have a coherent pattern of harmonics [there's that concept of harmony again] and that fifths and octaves can be brought into fairly close but not exact match, creating a core tension that we in effect resolve by finding solutions that are good enough for government work. For example, a resonance peak is typically broadened (an effect of damping in many cases and/or of overlapping peaks) so close enough is good enough. Where, we must recall, too, that Fourier analysis shows that waveforms can be broken down as sums of suitably phased harmonics of appropriate amplitudes and transients can be seen as continuous bands of sinusoids (by way of reduction to an integral, yet another abstract Mathematical process). In nominalist hands, the exposition that the human vocal tract is a wind instrument with fundamentals and harmonics and that the ear uses a mechanical fourier transform in the cochlea which would draw on the just above, is predictably going to be lost in the concept that there are no abstracta and/or universals and/or intelligible, universal, discoverable patterns of nature or universals. There are only concrete instances and culturally or individually imposed patterns. We cannot bridge from our ideas to the external realities of things in themselves. Some form of the Kantian ugly gulch has surfaced. It is therefore appropriate to point out F H Bradley's corrective:
We may agree, perhaps, to understand by metaphysics an attempt to know reality as against mere appearance, or the study of first principles or ultimate truths, or again the effort to comprehend the universe, not simply piecemeal or by fragments, but somehow as a whole [--> i.e. the focus of Metaphysics is critical studies of worldviews] . . . . The man who is ready to prove that metaphysical knowledge is wholly impossible . . . himself has, perhaps unknowingly, entered the arena . . . To say the reality is such that our knowledge cannot reach it, is a claim to know reality ; to urge that our knowledge is of a kind which must fail to transcend appearance, itself implies that transcendence. For, if we had no idea of a beyond, we should assuredly not know how to talk about failure or success. And the test, by which we distinguish them, must obviously be some acquaintance with the nature of the goal. Nay, the would-be sceptic, who presses on us the contradictions of our thoughts, himself asserts dogmatically. For these contradictions might be ultimate and absolute truth, if the nature of the reality were not known to be otherwise . . . [such] objections . . . are themselves, however unwillingly, metaphysical views, and . . . a little acquaintance with the subject commonly serves to dispel [them]. [Appearance and Reality, 2nd Edn, 1897 (1916 printing), pp. 1 - 2; INTRODUCTION. At Web Archive.]
Go back above and we see why there is that claim, oh, just because you can find a pattern of appearance to us does not mean you have found an objective principle. And of course, logical-mathematical and physical warrant on such a view cannot bridge to reality. There is no abstract reality to be bridged to, or at least of the kind you are interested in, here, aesthetic reality. I think it is far more sensible to conclude that nominalism fails, that the ugly gulch fails, that there are patterns that serve as archetypes of particular cases, some of them being embedded in the framework of any possible world (such as first principles of reason, structure and quantity stemming from distinct identity). In that context, it is unsurprising that intelligent, rational and responsible creatures can and do detect with some degree of reliable warrant, such patterns, archetypes, principles. And, that we find the coherence of harmony, proportion, symmetry, fractal, scaling self-symmetry, variety, subtle asymmetry and focus that relieve the boredom of mechanically repeated exact symmetry will be pleasant and satisfying, beautiful, then makes a lot of sense. So, beauty is connected to truth, warrant, knowledge and the like. Consequently in a day where truth etc are under assault, we can see why beauty and associated aesthetics principles will be deeply and unjustly suspect. Indeed, will be subjected to selective hyperskepticism. Beauty is a threat. No wonder the powerful have been willing to spend billions to impose the ugly, through defiance of aesthetics principles. And no wonder some find in the chaotic result something that resonates with their inner turmoils. No wonder, there is a spiral of silencing objections to such eyesores and chaotic monstrosities. Instead, let us accept that explosion holds and that what is self referentially incoherent is self-falsified and unreliable. Specifically, nominalism. I stand by my remark at 100 above:
of course, tastes can be outright bizarre, not just abnormal or culture-bound. One may always stoutly resist the conclusion of a convergent pattern of evidence and argument, but it is clear enough that there are aesthetic principles that are readily intelligible, are rooted in observable structural, quantitative and physical phenomena, and contribute to the patterns and phenomena we enjoy as beautiful. When they are willfully discarded as a bloc, it is equally clear that the result is chaotic and ugly. Billions of dollars of recent architectural eyesores are literally massive evidence on the point. I repeat, the subjective is not the opposite of the objective and the presence of intelligible, objective frameworks for aesthetics demonstrates that yes, beauty is in material part an objective predictable phenomenon, amenable to controlled, insightful skill rather than a hit and miss affair — indeed the art of photography is also evident in the cases above. It is not an accident that Grand Canyon was photographed at just that moment, from that angle with settings, filters, focus etc.
KFkairosfocus
March 13, 2019
March
03
Mar
13
13
2019
11:58 PM
11
11
58
PM
PDT
The actual logic of subjective opinion. If a choice is made between A and B, and A is chosen, then the question "what was it that made the choice turn out A?", can only be answered with a choice between X and Y, where either chosen answer X or Y is equally logically valid. Therefore to say the building is ugly, it requires the alternative possibility of saying the building is beautiful, which would be an equally logically valid opinion. And to say the building is ugly identifies a hate for the way the building looks as agency of the choice to say it is ugly. And to be sure, all the ugly buildings pictured were probably built by materialists who had no idea about subjectivity. It doesn't make sense to "accuse" of a subjective conception of beauty, when most probably all those ugly buildings stem from the materialist culture around science, which science only accepts facts.mohammadnursyamsu
March 13, 2019
March
03
Mar
13
13
2019
09:40 PM
9
09
40
PM
PDT
Hazel
Plastics?
No. I think it had somstung to do with some guy named Richard, or Dick. Or something like that. :)Brother Brian
March 13, 2019
March
03
Mar
13
13
2019
06:53 PM
6
06
53
PM
PDT
In order to balance my facetious comment at 118 (Dave got it!), this is an interesting paragraph from Wikipedia on conceptualism (to give kf something to do.)
A clear motivation of contemporary conceptualism is that the kind of perception that rational creatures like humans enjoy is unique in the fact that it has conceptual character. McDowell explains his position: I have urged that our perceptual relation to the world is conceptual all the way out to the world’s impacts on our receptive capacities. The idea of the conceptual that I mean to be invoking is to be understood in close connection with the idea of rationality, in the sense that is in play in the traditional separation of mature human beings, as rational animals, from the rest of the animal kingdom. Conceptual capacities are capacities that belong to their subject’s rationality. So another way of putting my claim is to say that our perceptual experience is permeated with rationality. I have also suggested, in passing, that something parallel should be said about our agency.[17] McDowell's conceptualism, though rather distinct (philosophically and historically) from conceptualism's genesis, shares the view that universals are not "given" in perception from outside the sphere of reason. Particular objects are perceived, as it were, already infused with conceptuality stemming from the spontaneity of the rational subject herself.
Just food for philosophical thought.hazel
March 13, 2019
March
03
Mar
13
13
2019
06:35 PM
6
06
35
PM
PDT
hazel, Is that a reference to The Graduate? :)daveS
March 13, 2019
March
03
Mar
13
13
2019
05:59 PM
5
05
59
PM
PDT
Plastics?hazel
March 13, 2019
March
03
Mar
13
13
2019
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT
KF
DS, I may elaborate later. Right now, I put a single word on the table: nominalism
I would put one word on the table, but the last time I did that, you censored it. :)Brother Brian
March 13, 2019
March
03
Mar
13
13
2019
05:06 PM
5
05
06
PM
PDT
DS, I may elaborate later. Right now, I put a single word on the table: nominalism. KFkairosfocus
March 13, 2019
March
03
Mar
13
13
2019
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PDT
I agree with Dave at 111. There is no use in repeating the obvious again and again.hazel
March 13, 2019
March
03
Mar
13
13
2019
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT
KF, Would you care to explain the comparison between the two sentences explicitly? I posted one of them, but not the other.daveS
March 13, 2019
March
03
Mar
13
13
2019
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT
DS, Let us compare:
Even though I believe humans share quite a bit of our aesthetic [--> Mathematical] sense in common, it must be shaped by culture to some extent.
The issue is not intersubjective agreement, it is not culture, it is not tastes, it is warrant. Warrant, backed by billions of dollars worth of blunders that created eyesores because powerful and culturally influential professionals decided to upend the historic framework of well founded aesthetics principles. Reflecting a now all too familiar pattern of chaotic decadence in our civilisation. KFkairosfocus
March 13, 2019
March
03
Mar
13
13
2019
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT
Brother Brian, Yes, I believe so. Even though I believe humans share quite a bit of our aesthetic sense in common, it must be shaped by culture to some extent.daveS
March 13, 2019
March
03
Mar
13
13
2019
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT
Yes, the architects designed buildings which most humans find ugly. Because they violated design principles which humans have discovered lead to buildings which humans find beautiful. None of this entails that the buildings on that page are either objectively beautiful or objectively ugly. Clearly I'm repeating myself, so I'll turn it over to others for now.daveS
March 13, 2019
March
03
Mar
13
13
2019
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PDT
DaveS
How does it “fail”? Most of us find those eyesore examples to be ugly. Architecture, just like any other art, is susceptible to trends. And most of us have little to no say in the design of large buildings in our cities.
I agree. Further to the subject of architecture and its beauty, I would suggest that part of the formula we use to determine if something is beautiful is what we are have become familiar with. Thinks like the Eiffel Tower were thought to be ugly when it was built. The same can be said for the Sydney Opera House and the glass pyramids of the Louvre. Many still feel that the glass pyramids are ugly but I find that they, somehow, add to the view. Maybe my sense of taste is terrible, but isn't that what we would expect if the concept of beauty was subjective?Brother Brian
March 13, 2019
March
03
Mar
13
13
2019
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT
DS, we find them ugly not just as clashing with our tastes -- I hate prunes (an acquired taste for some) -- but for good reason. The architects, caught up in a rebellion against long known aesthetics principles, induced decision-makers to spend billions. They only managed to create eyesores -- exactly as the canons predicted: too much asymmetry leads to incoherence, incongruity and chaos, which for good reason is repulsive save to those whose inner riot seeks an outer reinforcement. I doubt the lesson has been duly learned. Ponder the contrast between the sad man who has spent US$ 200k on trying to make himself look like a tiger, and those who sought plastic surgery to relieve deformities. Note also the impact of "ordinary" beauty we have become benumbed to, on those who see colour or hear in reasonable fidelity for the very first time. KFkairosfocus
March 13, 2019
March
03
Mar
13
13
2019
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT
KF,
DS, I already pointed out how intersubjective agreement fails: a consensus of bad tastes has created a billion dollar exercise of imposing the grotesque in the name of being fresh architecture.
How does it "fail"? Most of us find those eyesore examples to be ugly. Architecture, just like any other art, is susceptible to trends. And most of us have little to no say in the design of large buildings in our cities.daveS
March 13, 2019
March
03
Mar
13
13
2019
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT
DS, I already pointed out how intersubjective agreement fails: a consensus of bad tastes has created a billion dollar exercise of imposing the grotesque in the name of being fresh architecture. The issue is warrant, and it has long been clear that the determined will never concede warrant even in the face of the equivalent of a plumb line example. BTW, that is where I have now reached on the design inference: it is abundantly well warranted but there are those who will never concede that such could even be possible. KFkairosfocus
March 13, 2019
March
03
Mar
13
13
2019
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT
F/N: I added three videos as a PS. They are a lesson about beauty we take for granted.kairosfocus
March 13, 2019
March
03
Mar
13
13
2019
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT
Artificial music: The computers that create melodies
If this were the case, we should be able to program a computer to create beautiful music.
We have. :cool:ET
March 13, 2019
March
03
Mar
13
13
2019
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT
KF,
As SB points out (and as we may extend), not just anyone can win a serious beauty contest, or become a world class singer or composer or architect who actually avoids the fashionable monstrosities of today.
This could be explained by the very useful term that GUN introduced to the discussion: intersubjectivity.daveS
March 13, 2019
March
03
Mar
13
13
2019
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT
KF, Clipping the relevant parts of your post:
DS, aesthetic enjoyment (as opposed to sensuality) is indeed a personal experience. The point is, that it is observably directly tied to mathematical and physical phenomena which are objective, many embedded in the world.
Yes, works of music that humans find beautiful have the properties that you describe. And these properties can be described objectively using the language of physics and mathematics.
All of this comes together as objective phenomena tied to aesthetic principles that help us understand the enjoyable structure of music. Such phenomena are clearly objective, and point again to how the aesthetic principles guide creativity in making beautiful music.
"Us", meaning humans.
One may always stoutly resist the conclusion of a convergent pattern of evidence and argument, but it is clear enough that there are aesthetic principles that are readily intelligible, are rooted in observable structural, quantitative and physical phenomena, and contribute to the patterns and phenomena we enjoy as beautiful. When they are willfully discarded as a bloc, it is equally clear that the result is chaotic and ugly. [according to humans]
To summarize, works of music which humans find beautiful can usually (or sometimes at least) be identified by properties which objectively exist. This explains in part why humans find Bach's cello suites beautiful. It's because we find music with the elements you have listed are present in the suites. This says nothing about whether the cello suites have objective beauty. How do we know our "choice" of musically beautiful elements is actually indicative of objective beauty, rather than being just one of many possible choices?daveS
March 13, 2019
March
03
Mar
13
13
2019
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT
F/N: IEP on objectivity:
https://www.iep.utm.edu/objectiv/ Objectivity The terms “objectivity” and “subjectivity,” in their modern usage, generally relate to a perceiving subject (normally a person) and a perceived or unperceived object. The object is something that presumably exists independent of the [I add, particular] subject’s perception of it. In other words, the object would be there, as it is, even if no subject perceived it. Hence, objectivity is typically associated with ideas such as reality, truth and reliability. The perceiving subject can either perceive accurately or seem to perceive features of the object that are not in the object. For example, a perceiving subject suffering from jaundice could seem to perceive an object as yellow when the object is not actually yellow. Hence, the term “subjective” typically indicates the possibility of error. The potential for discrepancies between features of the subject’s perceptual impressions and the real qualities of the perceived object generates philosophical questions. There are also philosophical questions regarding the nature of objective reality and the nature of our so-called subjective reality. Consequently, we have various uses of the terms “objective” and “subjective” and their cognates to express possible differences between objective reality and subjective impressions. Philosophers refer to perceptual impressions themselves as being subjective or objective. Consequent judgments are objective or subjective to varying degrees, and we divide reality into objective reality and subjective reality. Thus, it is important to distinguish the various uses of the terms “objective” and “subjective.”
In short, the issue of objectivity is that of warrant. If there is warrant that makes it reasonable and responsible to accept that X exists or is the case, it is an objective claim. In the case of beauty, it is obviously an abstract phenomenon that emerges in our perceptions through our response to certain phenomena, some inner, some outer. We see there is a reasonable, responsible framework that warrants the conclusion, X is beautiful, it is not merely equal to x, per his/her unaccountable tastes, likes X or x's culture has set up a rule and indoctrinates its members to like X. After all. x's tastes may be defective, cultures go through eras of manifestly poor taste -- see the architectural eyesores -- or his or her senses may be malfunctioning. The amazed reaction of the colour-blind on being given filtering glasses speaks volumes to this -- and shows the stability of the principles. There is warrant for holding beauty (as opposed to aesthetic or sensuality-driven or sensationalist impact on any given x) has responsible, rational warrant on intelligible and defensible principles, so it is objective. As SB points out (and as we may extend), not just anyone can win a serious beauty contest, or become a world class singer or composer or architect who actually avoids the fashionable monstrosities of today. KFkairosfocus
March 13, 2019
March
03
Mar
13
13
2019
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT
BB, computers are not independent creators, they are a means by which a programmer may in this case compose music. MIDI allows one to go from notes to voices of instruments [thanks to the mathematical magic of Fourier and Nyquist] to music that can be heard. There are many people with perfect pitch who by simply reading a score can hear it played perfectly in their minds, similar to how we may "hear" as we read silently . . . and BTW, a mike can pick up the sounds (yes, that is direct proof of objectivity of the process for the hyperskeptical) -- the inner ear is a two-way street. KFkairosfocus
March 13, 2019
March
03
Mar
13
13
2019
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT
DS, aesthetic enjoyment (as opposed to sensuality) is indeed a personal experience. The point is, that it is observably directly tied to mathematical and physical phenomena which are objective, many embedded in the world. For example, the phenomenon of harmonics and fundamentals is a property of an inertial, elastic body. The octave pattern turns out to be tied to frequency, wavelength, wave velocity, reflections and standing waves. That notes in octave have a similarity because of how onward harmonics behave (waves out of such symmetric alignment will have odd interference effects), and that notes in the fifth relationship are similar and can come close enough to alignment to fit in well enough (but not perfectly) actually provides an objective basis for musical scales. Similarly, given our vocal tracts as musical instruments and given interference and the related phenomenon of Fourier summing of harmonics to yield a waveform, it is unsurprising that our auditory system uses a basilar membrane set up so frequencies cause resonant peaks at particular points along the coil of the cochlea, which then goes in like pattern to the brain. All of this comes together as objective phenomena tied to aesthetic principles that help us understand the enjoyable structure of music. Such phenomena are clearly objective, and point again to how the aesthetic principles guide creativity in making beautiful music. Where of course, tastes can be outright bizarre, not just abnormal or culture-bound. One may always stoutly resist the conclusion of a convergent pattern of evidence and argument, but it is clear enough that there are aesthetic principles that are readily intelligible, are rooted in observable structural, quantitative and physical phenomena, and contribute to the patterns and phenomena we enjoy as beautiful. When they are willfully discarded as a bloc, it is equally clear that the result is chaotic and ugly. Billions of dollars of recent architectural eyesores are literally massive evidence on the point. I repeat, the subjective is not the opposite of the objective and the presence of intelligible, objective frameworks for aesthetics demonstrates that yes, beauty is in material part an objective predictable phenomenon, amenable to controlled, insightful skill rather than a hit and miss affair -- indeed the art of photography is also evident in the cases above. It is not an accident that Grand Canyon was photographed at just that moment, from that angle with settings, filters, focus etc. KFkairosfocus
March 13, 2019
March
03
Mar
13
13
2019
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT
1 8 9 10 11 12 14

Leave a Reply