Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

[Grace Seeker]

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

Yes, you are clear, and Suzeto made some good points along the way. I'm just not sure I agree with either of you on that point yet. Truth seems to me to be objective and absolute, as such one might conclude that God is the ultimate determiner of what is and is not true. But beauty still strikes me, even despite some good arguments otherwise, to be something that is subjective to the person doing the observing. For instance, I'm not yet convinced that there is an absolute beauty against which other things can be measured. And for beauty to not be subjective, it seems that such a standard must first exist. The closest we get to that in scripture is Psalm 50:2, "From Zion, perfect in beauty, God shines forth." But, I don't think this quite meets the criterian of establishing an absolute standard of beauty. Closer is the argument that there seems to be general agreement that most people share that such and such a look is beautiful. But the problem is that the phrase is "general" agreement and "most" people share. It isn't universal. And so, the concept of beauty seem, at least to me, to remain relative to the observer's value as to what is and is not beautiful.

 

[Suzeteo]

For instance, I'm not yet convinced that there is an absolute beauty against which other things can be measured. And for beauty to not be subjective, it seems that such a standard must first exist. The closest we get to that in scripture is Psalm 50:2, "From Zion, perfect in beauty, God shines forth." But, I don't think this quite meets the criterian of establishing an absolute standard of beauty.

How about the absolute standard being the perfect unity in love of Father, Son and Spirit?

Closer is the argument that there seems to be general agreement that most people share that such and such a look is beautiful. But the problem is that the phrase is "general" agreement and "most" people share. It isn't universal. And so, the concept of beauty seem, at least to me, to remain relative to the observer's value as to what is and is not beautiful.

Doesn't the same argument apply to morality? Do you think morality is objective (I'm assuming so) and why?

 

[Grace Seeker]

Doesn't the same argument apply to morality? Do you think morality is objective (I'm assuming so) and why?

I suppose that I think that morality is objective because God has given us a set of commands articulating "thou shalt" and "thou shalt not", thus regulating behavior in away that does not ask for us to evaluate it to determine if it is or is not moral, but simply assert that this is the way it should be. So, morality is defined as that which is in accord with God's design.

But beauty is something that God leaves for us to recognize. When we say that we prefer doing our own thing to what God has chosen for us, that is called sin. But I don't sense that God calls it sin when we say that we prefer the Beatles to Strauss? Rather, it seems that God allows us such preferences.

Of course, you could argue that God also allows us preferences in terms of behaviors. One person might like to swim and another to skateboard, neither of which would be classified as a sin. (I'm making your argument for you.) And so there is a difference in talking about preferences within a given boundary and looking outside of that boundary and declaring that something like poverty or disease (which may not in and of themselves be sinful) were beautiful and still try to assert that such a statement was in accord with God's value system or wasn't actually in a larger sense an act of blasphemy directed against God.

You're stretching me, Suzeteo, and making this a much deeper question than I originally thought.

 

[Sarada]

deleted by author. comment not applicable

 

[ابن آل مرة]

Beauty is a strange quality, it sometimes deceives us and sometimes leaves us in awe.

 

[IbnAbdulHakim]

philosophy is just so messy


I think occurrences which happen in the time of a persons life cause that certain thing to be beautiful or ugly. For example a person may find someone beautiful until cheated on by them.


or a person may love a certain thing until a disaster occurs which is caused BY that thing.

just my thoughts

 

[Sarada]

"A Thing of Beauty (Endymion)

A thing of beauty is a joy for ever:
Its lovliness increases; it will never
Pass into nothingness; but still will keep
A bower quiet for us, and a sleep
Full of sweet dreams, and health, and quiet breathing.
Therefore, on every morrow, are we wreathing
A flowery band to bind us to the earth,
Spite of despondence, of the inhuman dearth
Of noble natures, of the gloomy days,
Of all the unhealthy and o'er-darkn'd ways
Made for our searching: yes, in spite of all,
Some shape of beauty moves away the pall
From our dark spirits. Such the sun, the moon,
Trees old and young, sprouting a shady boon
For simple sheep; and such are daffodils
With the green world they live in; and clear rills
That for themselves a cooling covert make
'Gainst the hot season; the mid-forest brake,
Rich with a sprinkling of fair musk-rose blooms:
And such too is the grandeur of the dooms
We have imagined for the mighty dead;
An endless fountain of immortal drink,
Pouring unto us from the heaven's brink."

John Keats



Beauty is definitely in the eye of the beholder (subjective). I have in my possession a million year old ammonite fossil. To me, it is most beautiful, but most people that I know do not share my attraction to this little brown object. But I see its many miraculous intricasies: to me it is beautiful to behold. Truth, with a capital T, on the other hand by definition must be absolute (objective). Although our perception of the truth is often subjective.

 

[Woodrow]

This actually turned out to be quite complex to me. I tend to go along with Hospers Theory of Aesthetic Attitude in that to see beauty can be learned, in regards to how a person develops an attitude about Beauty. It is the ability to view and appreciate an object with no desire or need to possess it. This means the concept of physical beauty is in the attitude and concepts of the beholder. That works fine in terms of the physical world for the Beauty of physical objects.

Now it is not quite so clear in terms of the intangible such as:

Honesty
Love
Dedication
Generosity
Etc.

This initially seem like they are absolute beauty in there very nature and as such can be said to be Absolute. Yet if we look at different peoples attitudes about these things no everybody sees them as Beauty for example a Greedy person would see generosity as being foolish, and ugly concept that causes lose of wealth.

Let us now think of Beauty as being a form of communication. Communication requires 3 things a message, a sender and a receiver. The sender has to send the message exactly as it is, the receiver has to understand it exactly as it was sent. Without this 3 things or if one is faulty, there is no communication. So it is with Beaty, it is sent hopefully clearly, but if the receiver does not receive it intact or has faulty reception it wii not be seen properly. So for Beauty to be seen it is in the concepts (eyes) of the Beholder.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Let us now think of Beauty as being a form of communication. Communication requires 3 things a message, a sender and a receiver. The sender has to send the message exactly as it is, the receiver has to understand it exactly as it was sent. Without this 3 things or if one is faulty, there is no communication. So it is with Beaty, it is sent hopefully clearly, but if the receiver does not receive it intact or has faulty reception it wii not be seen properly. So for Beauty to be seen it is in the concepts (eyes) of the Beholder.

I suspect this is why I abhore the sort of statement found in forums everywhere...., "In my last post, I have clearly shown/proven ___________." What one person thinks is clear, is as clear as mud to others. What one person thinks is proven, is still disputed by others. Most of said claims appear to me to be just another case of "eye of the beholder" scenario. For example, I just left a thread in another forum where people with different political perspectives were discussing the administration's health care plan. You would be right if you guessed that their "clear" analyses were less than obvious to one another. It is little wonder that many of our own threads in this forum similarly bog down when we try to prove our divergent views with regard to God and other aspects of religion to one another.

 

[Woodrow]

I suspect this is why I abhore the sort of statement found in forums everywhere...., "In my last post, I have clearly shown/proven ___________." What one person thinks is clear, is as clear as mud to others. What one person thinks is proven, is still disputed by others. Most of said claims appear to me to be just another case of "eye of the beholder" scenario. For example, I just left a thread in another forum where people with different political perspectives were discussing the administration's health care plan. You would be right if you guessed that their "clear" analyses were less than obvious to one another. It is little wonder that many of our own threads in this forum similarly bog down when we try to prove our divergent views with regard to God and other aspects of religion to one another.

Peace Gene,

I agree with you here. What is self evident to one person is not necessarily self evident to another. Part of understanding comes from recognizing that what we say will often mean something different to another person and not be as obvious as we think it is.

Human communication is very complex and we do get into disagreements when we fail to see that none of us see through the same set of eyes.

 

[Woodrow]

I suspect this is why I abhore the sort of statement found in forums everywhere...., "In my last post, I have clearly shown/proven ___________." What one person thinks is clear, is as clear as mud to others. What one person thinks is proven, is still disputed by others. Most of said claims appear to me to be just another case of "eye of the beholder" scenario. For example, I just left a thread in another forum where people with different political perspectives were discussing the administration's health care plan. You would be right if you guessed that their "clear" analyses were less than obvious to one another. It is little wonder that many of our own threads in this forum similarly bog down when we try to prove our divergent views with regard to God and other aspects of religion to one another.

Peace Gene,

I agree with you here. What is self evident to one person is not necessarily self evident to another. Part of understanding comes from recognizing that what we say will often mean something different to another person and not be as obvious as we think it is.

Human communication is very complex and we do get into disagreements when we fail to see that none of us see through the same set of eyes.