Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. True or False?

  • Total voters
    0
^ Say Mashallah to bless the thing you see in your sister that pleases you. :statisfie
 
I see the natural world as beautiful and all the cities and man made stuff as junk and an abomination upon the Earth. A sand dune impresses me more than the finest building
Click to expand...
.
interesting view..

I think somewhat the same thing, a part from the fact that buildings are junk, since they have their uses (obviously). Though some might find them aesthetically pleasing (and I definitely find some too, I won't deny that), the beauty of nature is incomparable, sub7anAllah. No building will ever be able to "take my breath away", but nature scenes definitely do.

As for the original post, I chose the 1st one. Beauty in in the eye of the beholder, since we are all individual beings with different preferences ( I like the fact that you excluded physical attractiveness from your question, it makes it all the more interesting). You may see beauty in things which others may find dull or distasteful, like a poem or painting or something. As for nature, I might find a spider creepy and be frightened by it, while others may have it as a pet...they have a tender spot within for it, which, I think in some ways, requires you to see some "beauty" in it..or at least, view it in a different manner than I.
 
Thinking more about perceived beauty in general, I think it is in the eye of the beholder. The reason being that our emotional response (like/dislike) probably depends on what we associate with the given scenery/object/person ... and that depends on our life experiences or what we we taught or what we are used to ... etc

What I am saying is would survivors of the sinking of the Titanic have been able to find pictures of icebergs or the vast sea still beautiful? Or would their experience have marred that perception?

I remember snakelegs (a late forum member) always saying how she loved the desert. I could never relate to that (still can't). Mostly because I have never been to a desert but I have been taught to associate negative things with it - dryness, barrenness, colourless, danger ... etc
Snakelegs went to the desert quite often, and her own experience was very different - she found it vibrant and full of animal life (if you know where to look), but also peaceful and quiet.

Just some thoughts ...

P.S. I have to add that this applies to our human perception only. I believe that on a divine level everything has a very different beauty, and is possibly fixed. But I didn't think that was the kind of issue this thread was addressing ...
 
Last edited:
glo said:
P.S. I have to add that this applies to our human perception only. I believe that on a divine level everything has a very different beauty, and is possibly fixed. But I didn't think that was the kind of issue this thread was addressing ...
Click to expand...


I'll go ahead and bite....

You said "everything". Are you suggesting that God would perceive beauty in hunger, povery, illness, death? Or are you saying that their beauty would fixed as either being or not being beautiful in absolute terms because God would not have any subjective experience of them?
 
Karl said:
I see the natural world as beautiful and all the cities and man made stuff as junk and an abomination upon the Earth. A sand dune impresses me more than the finest building.
Click to expand...
I sort of do as well. Yet, I hear people talk about the Taj Mahal (a memorial for the dead) as being beautiful and swamps as ugly.
 
Suzeteo said:
Great thread. I seems to me that aesthetic realism goes hand in hand with moral realism - for every argument for/against aesthetic realism there is a corresponding argument for/against moral realism. Can you think of an argument against the objectivity of aesthetic values that doesn't also work as an argument against the objectivity of moral values?

It also seems to me that statements like "Sunsets are beautiful." are more obviously true than the premises of any argument against aesthetic realism. Also, on theism, the universe is the Great Artist's Masterpiece - "The heavens declare the glory of God." To say that "Sunsets are beautiful." is not a proposition is coming fairly close to blasphemy!

For me, the really interesting question is how such different objects (sunsets, art, music, people, mathematical theorems? God?) can all share this property "beauty"?
Click to expand...


This is sort of what I was getting at in my original question. Thanks for posting!!

We call something beautiful and assume that other people, even if they don't agree with us that it is beautiful, will understand what we mean by beauty. But, if beauty is in the eye of the beholder, then perhaps they in fact have a totally different concept that comes to their mind when we say that something is beautiful? Don't we have to have a shared context in order to be sure we have the same concept of beauty? Or is our very humanness all that we need to have in common to know what each other means by the concept of beauty?

When someone reads a poem that is unfamiliar to me, tells me that it is beautiful and I should read it, how do I perceive and relate to its beauty prior to the time when I actually read it for myself? Is it even possible to do that until I have subjectively experienced it for myself? And if not, then are we not saying that there is no absolute beauty in the poem, but that it all depends on the subjective experience of the reader? If that is so for a poem that I have never read, how could a sunset be beautiful to a blindman? Despite your and my assertion that "Sunsets are beautiful." -- to the point for you that not saying so would come fairly close to blasphemy -- are they not something that still has to be subjectively experienced so that whatever beauty they may or maynot possess either does not exist or at least lays hidden until they are actually beheld. And thus it is only in the beholding of the sunset (poem, art, music, face), not in the abstract construction of them as a concept, that they possess any beauty at all?
 
Last edited:
Grace Seeker said:
We call something beautiful and assume that other people, even if they don't agree with us that it is beautiful, will understand what we mean by beauty. But, if beauty is in the eye of the beholder, then perhaps they in fact have a totally different concept that comes to their mind when we say that something is beautiful?
Click to expand...
That people have different understanding of what the word ‘beauty’ refers to (which is evident from the fact that a philosopher of aesthetics has a more developed understanding than that of a child) is also perfectly consistent with the objectivity of beauty itself (Beauty with a capital ‘B’). Words are malleable; reality is not. That people across cultures and throughout history have made aesthetic judgements (especially that people are able to disagree about them) is evidence that there is something of substance to aesthetic values. (There is a clear parallel here with moral values - C.S. Lewis makes similar points in Mere Christianity.) Of course it is perfectly possible that we are really talking about nothing, but the burden of proof is on the nihilist to demonstrate this without using words that can also be subjected to the same analysis.

Don't we have to have a shared context in order to be sure we have the same concept of beauty? Or is our very humanness all that we need to have in common to know what each other means by the concept of beauty?
Click to expand...
As stated above, people do indeed have different understandings of what is to be meant by ‘beauty’. But not totally different; most, I think, will agree that beauty has something to do with the unity of the parts of an object and to the feeling of joy evoked by it, and perhaps there are other parts of a basic definition that could be included. Why this commonality of understanding exists is another question, of course.

When someone reads a poem that is unfamiliar to me, tells me that it is beautiful and I should read it, how do I perceive and relate to its beauty prior to the time when I actually read it for myself? Is it even possible to do that until I have subjectively experienced it for myself? And if not, then are we not saying that there is no absolute beauty in the poem, but that it all depends on the subjective experience of the reader? If that is so for a poem that I have never read, how could a sunset be beautiful to a blindman? Despite your and my assertion that "Sunsets are beautiful." -- to the point for you that not saying so would come fairly close to blasphemy -- are they not something that still has to be subjectively experienced so that whatever beauty they may or maynot possess either does not exist or at least lays hidden until they are actually beheld. And thus it is only in the beholding of the sunset (poem, art, music, face), not in the abstract construction of them as a concept, that they possess any beauty at all?
Click to expand...
On realism, beauty is an intrinsic property of objects. You can’t experience the beauty of an object without experiencing the object itself – that is clear. But the beauty of an object is independent of whether anyone experiences that beauty or not (that is really the definition of objective). A blind man fails to experience the beauty of a sunset not because sunsets aren’t, in fact, beautiful, but because he is blind – unable to experience the sunset’s beauty. It is exactly the same as the fact that the existence of a man without any sensory perception whatsoever wouldn’t cast doubt on the objective reality of non-human objects.
 
Grace Seeker said:
I'll go ahead and bite....

You said "everything". Are you suggesting that God would perceive beauty in hunger, povery, illness, death? Or are you saying that their beauty would fixed as either being or not being beautiful in absolute terms because God would not have any subjective experience of them?
Click to expand...
Oh ... you got me there!

I was more thinking along the lines of God's created world - from sunsets and mountain ranges to caterpillars and mosquitoes ...
I would say all those things are good, and that God believes them to be so. Their beauty is determined by God's statement that 'is was good' - even of in our human eyes they aren't always.

As for hunger, poverty, illness, death, I cannot imagine that God would perceive those as good.

But what do you mean by God not subjectively experiencing them? That he has not experienced hunger, poverty, illness and death himself? I thought he had ...
 
glo said:

But what do you mean by God not subjectively experiencing them? That he has not experienced hunger, poverty, illness and death himself? I thought he had ...
Click to expand...
And you got me there! haha

Obviously, I wasn't thinking incarnationally when I wrote that.
 
Suzeteo said:
That people have different understanding of what the word ‘beauty’ refers to (which is evident from the fact that a philosopher of aesthetics has a more developed understanding than that of a child) is also perfectly consistent with the objectivity of beauty itself ....

On realism, beauty is an intrinsic property of objects. You can’t experience the beauty of an object without experiencing the object itself – that is clear. But the beauty of an object is independent of whether anyone experiences that beauty or not (that is really the definition of objective). A blind man fails to experience the beauty of a sunset not because sunsets aren’t, in fact, beautiful, but because he is blind – unable to experience the sunset’s beauty. It is exactly the same as the fact that the existence of a man without any sensory perception whatsoever wouldn’t cast doubt on the objective reality of non-human objects.
Click to expand...
You make some good points.

So, would your argument be consistent with the statement that BEAUTY is indeed as real and absolute in nature as say TRUTH? (Which presupposes that TRUTH exists in absolute form, I realize that some would deny that statement as well.)
 
Grace Seeker said:
You make some good points.

So, would your argument be consistent with the statement that BEAUTY is indeed as real and absolute in nature as say TRUTH? (Which presupposes that TRUTH exists in absolute form, I realize that some would deny that statement as well.)
Click to expand...
Truth and beauty are difficult ones to compare: truth is a property of propositions whereas beauty is a property of objects. So it follows that all combinations of objectivity/subjectivity with respect to beauty and truth are consistent (including mine). That is why I find the comparison of beauty and goodness more helpful, as they are both properties of concrete objects.

Ultimately, I find beauty to be objectively grounded in God's nature (and there is an important connection here with one of the comments I made previously...).

I have been surprised that most of the Muslims who have contributed have said that beauty is subjective (that may be due to confusion about the purpose of the thread). The Quran says (S. 7:180) that Allah's Names are beautiful - is this beauty to which is refers dependent on our opinions?
 
At the risk of starting another "debate" (euphemism on these boards for argument), I would like to follow up on that last throught -- "I have been surprised that most of the Muslims who have contributed have said that beauty is subjective (that may be due to confusion about the purpose of the thread). The Quran says (S. 7:180) that Allah's Names are beautiful - is this beauty to which is refers dependent on our opinions?" In many other threads I have often seen Muslims express the view that the Qur'an is beautiful in its use of language. If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, would it not be fair to say that a Muslim's view with regard to the beauty of the Qur'an is found in his/her perspective as a Muslim, and that one should not consider such a statement to be an objective truth, but a subjective one.

Note: the illustration is made simply because of how often I've heard such a statement regarding the Qur'an's beauty on these threads. I'm not arguing that those who see it this way are wrong, only questioning whether such a view can be said to be objective in nature. The same question could be put to any other group and in evaluating their own sacred texts. Debating whether the Qur'an (or any other text, sacred or secular) is or is not beautiful is beyond the scope of this thread. Debating whether such a statement is subjective or objective in nature is the question that would be relevant to this thread.
 
Last edited:
Grace Seeker said:
At the risk of starting another "debate" (euphemism on these boards for argument), I would like to follow up on that last throught -- "I have been surprised that most of the Muslims who have contributed have said that beauty is subjective (that may be due to confusion about the purpose of the thread). The Quran says (S. 7:180) that Allah's Names are beautiful - is this beauty to which is refers dependent on our opinions?" In many other threads I have often seen Muslims express the view that the Qur'an is beautiful in its use of language. If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, would it not be fair to say that a Muslim's view with regard to the beauty of the Qur'an is found in his/her perspective as a Muslim, and that one should not consider such a statement to be an objective truth, but a subjective one.

Note: the illustration is made simply because of how often I've heard such a statement regarding the Qur'an's beauty on these threads. I'm not arguing that those who see it this way are wrong, only questioning whether such a view can be said to be objective in nature. The same question could be put to any other group and in evaluating their own sacred texts. Debating whether the Qur'an (or any other text, sacred or secular) is or is not beautiful is beyond the scope of this thread. Debating whether such a statement is subjective or objective in nature is the question that would be relevant to this thread.
Click to expand...

how can u compare the beauty of the holy Qur'an to what humans find attractive in other humans. the fact that no human can produce a book or even a surah the like of it

Makes it beautiful and unique because its from god.

but i think this is off topic so make a thread about it and explain your illogical dribble drabble there maybe lol
 
I don't think this thread is 'illogical dribble drabble'. I think it is a delightful opportunity for people to explore an issue together and share their thoughts - something, which I for one definitely enjoy. :statisfie

Grace Seeker, I am reminded of this verse: "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts."
I don't know if it relates to the topic of this thread, but perhaps the beauty of certain things (such a scripture) is etched into our hearts - and we all have the ability to see it, if only we open our hearts and see.

Certain beauty may indeed be divinely defined - but that doesn't mean that our human hearts and minds can perceive it.

(I'm not so sure I'm making sense myself now ... :hiding:)
 
Suzeteo said:
Great thread. I seems to me that aesthetic realism goes hand in hand with moral realism - for every argument for/against aesthetic realism there is a corresponding argument for/against moral realism. Can you think of an argument against the objectivity of aesthetic values that doesn't also work as an argument against the objectivity of moral values?

It also seems to me that statements like "Sunsets are beautiful." are more obviously true than the premises of any argument against aesthetic realism. Also, on theism, the universe is the Great Artist's Masterpiece - "The heavens declare the glory of God." To say that "Sunsets are beautiful." is not a proposition is coming fairly close to blasphemy!

For me, the really interesting question is how such different objects (sunsets, art, music, people, mathematical theorems? God?) can all share this property "beauty"?
Click to expand...

Though this may not be entirely related to the point you are making in your post, I read something interesting by Bertrand Russell. To paraphrase (I hope I am remembering this correctly), he was asked why he has the moral beliefs that he does and not others, and he responded by saying that this is like asking why blue is his favourite colour .
 
Lynx said:
Though this may not be entirely related to the point you are making in your post, I read something interesting by Bertrand Russell. To paraphrase (I hope I am remembering this correctly), he was asked why he has the moral beliefs that he does and not others, and he responded by saying that this is like asking why blue is his favourite colour .
Click to expand...
The Copleston-Russell debate by any chance?

__________

Copleston: Yes, but what's your justification for distinguishing between good and bad or how do you view the distinction between them?

Russell: I don't have any justification any more than I have when I distinguish between blue and yellow. What is my justification for distinguishing between blue and yellow? I can see they are different.

C: Well, that is an excellent justification, I agree. You distinguish blue and yellow by seeing them, so you distinguish good and bad by what faculty?

R: By my feelings.

C: By your feelings. Well, that's what I was asking. You think that good and evil have reference simply to feeling?

R: Well, why does one type of object look yellow and another look blue? I can more or less give an answer to that thanks to the physicists, and as to why I think one sort of thing good and another evil, probably there is an answer of the same sort, but it hasn't been gone into in the same way and I couldn't give it [to] you.
__________​
 
cat eyes said:
how can u compare the beauty of the holy Qur'an to what humans find attractive in other humans. the fact that no human can produce a book or even a surah the like of it

Makes it beautiful and unique because its from god.
Click to expand...
Aren't humans also from God?
 
cat eyes said:


how can u compare the beauty of the holy Qur'an to what humans find attractive in other humans.
Click to expand...


I'm not comparing the Qur'an to things like eyes, hair, body shape, nice smile, inviting laugh, pleasant personality, or any other personal trait. But I am willing to use the same concepts with regard to whether or not beauty is subjective vs objective and apply the idea to the Qur'an equally with any other item that we might claim as being beautiful.

How? Why? Precisely because beauty is (at least according to most of us) in the eye of the beholder. Simply put, I don't see the same beauty in the Qur'an that you don't. Doesn't mean that it isn't beautiful, at least to you, but it doesn't present itself to me in the same way that you see it.
 
Last edited:

Similar Threads

Back
Top