Thinking about beauty

liveya

I am aware many philosophers have written about beauty, and what is beauty, etc. I haven't studied any of philosophy in this area; namely asthetics. So I thought I'd have a stab at defining beauty before I go reading others works.

First, to help me understand, I need to remember the reaction I had when I see a magic trick, a good magic trick. That is, I react in wonder and awe at seeing something I don't fully understand, but at some (unconscious?) level, know there is in fact mathematics behind it. This sense of wonder is similar I think to seeing something beautiful.

So take a beautiful landscape, on seeing its beauty, I react the same way. So is what I see before me beautiful, because there is such an amount of mathematics behind it that I cannot comprehend it fully?, but at some level I know there is, so I react in a similar way upon experiencing a magic trick, when I experience that, moment. Essentially I am in awe at the mathematics involved behind the building of this, seemingly naturalistic lanscape. But cannot handle it.

Of course in this definition of beauty there has to be absolutes, because all this maths is logical which must lead to an ultimate truth, God.

I define it as follows:

"To experience Beauty, is when the subject realises (unconsciously), that the logic that lies behind the creation of such is totally beyond comprehension. So the reaction is awe and wonder."

I must add the feelings which are experienced upon seeing something beautiful, that is a sense of wonder, and even joy, joy because I unconsciously realise that there is a source of all this logic, which brings on feelings of contentment and meaning.

Black Swan

liveya wrote: »

Of course in this definition of beauty there has to be absolutes, because all this maths is logical which must lead to an ultimate truth, God.

"To experience Beauty, is when the subject realises (unconsciously), that the logic that lies behind the creation...

MOD COMMENT:
Please be advised that we will entertain this topic on beauty in the Philosophy forum, provided that it does not become a discussion more appropriate to a forum that is dedicated to theology; i.e., "God," creationism, religious beliefs, etc. We have forums that focus on those perspectives in Religion and Spirituality.

MisterEpicurus

liveya wrote: »

I am aware many philosophers have written about beauty, and what is beauty, etc. I haven't studied any of philosophy in this area; namely asthetics. So I thought I'd have a stab at defining beauty before I go reading others works.

First, to help me understand, I need to remember the reaction I had when I see a magic trick, a good magic trick. That is, I react in wonder and awe at seeing something I don't fully understand, but at some (unconscious?) level, know there is in fact mathematics behind it. This sense of wonder is similar I think to seeing something beautiful.

So take a beautiful landscape, on seeing its beauty, I react the same way. So is what I see before me beautiful, because there is such an amount of mathematics behind it that I cannot comprehend it fully?, but at some level I know there is, so I react in a similar way upon experiencing a magic trick, when I experience that, moment. Essentially I am in awe at the mathematics involved behind the building of this, seemingly naturalistic lanscape. But cannot handle it.

Of course in this definition of beauty there has to be absolutes, because all this maths is logical which must lead to an ultimate truth, God.

I define it as follows:

"To experience Beauty, is when the subject realises (unconsciously), that the logic that lies behind the creation of such is totally beyond comprehension. So the reaction is awe and wonder."

I must add the feelings which are experienced upon seeing something beautiful, that is a sense of wonder, and even joy, joy because I unconsciously realise that there is a source of all this logic, which brings on feelings of contentment and meaning.

I assume the Moderator doesn't mind myself bringing up objective morality.

Isn't an objective morality the same as objective beauty?
In other words, both contain facets of them that are objective while some of them are subjective.
For example, sunsets and amazing landscapes always evoke the feeling of beauty...and murder is always a facet of an objective morality. At the same time, there's subjective forms of both, like whether we find people beautiful and whether we find abortion objectively immoral?
Do they not draw the same parallels?

Duggys Housemate

this kind of reaction is often called the feeling of the Sublime.

liveya

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

I assume the Moderator doesn't mind myself bringing up objective morality.

Isn't an objective morality the same as objective beauty?
In other words, both contain facets of them that are objective while some of them are subjective.
For example, sunsets and amazing landscapes always evoke the feeling of beauty...and murder is always a facet of an objective morality. At the same time, there's subjective forms of both, like whether we find people beautiful and whether we find abortion objectively immoral?
Do they not draw the same parallels?

Yes, objective beauty and objective morality, needs to be addressed here, I'll do my best..

It makes sense you brought up morality here because if there is an objective beauty, then there has to be an objective morality. Because immoral behaviour isn't beautiful (because it's not truthful, that is illogical) and moral behaviour is beautiful (that is, it's based on truthful telling, logic). Which makes sense because moral behaviour is what we term 'good'; and immoral behaviour is what we term 'evil', or 'bad'.

Let's exmaine this claim. Would you say the act of bullying is beautiful? If it's not, then this behaviour (bullying) must be based on untruthfulness. That is, that a lie is being told somewhere, an untruth. What lies could a bully be telling? what comes to mind is the lie that the victim is the person with the problem and not them. As people can agree that the bully has the problem. So bullying is ugly, and indeed it is. So it must be based on untruthfulness, that namely, the bully is lying about their own, problematic condition.

So now let's examine the idea of beauty. If something is beautful, it's truthful. (because it's based on sound logic - truth) then ugliness must be untruthful, based on lies.

It seems to me that if I were to see beauty in something that was logical, that is truthful, and another person saw the same thing, but saw ugliness or something less beuatiful, it follows, regarding morality that they are not living in the truth, and therefore leading a somewhat immoral life.

That is, the immoral person sees less beauty than the moral person. Because the moral person is being truthful, and therefore sees much more beauty in the world, and the immoral person sees less beauty because they are not truthful (to themselves and to others).

I say to you, good sir, that the immoral person sees less beauty than the moral person because they themselves come from a less truthful life, that is, the immoral person is not being truthful to themselves, and therefore to others. What a claim that is, but it seems to make sense. I'll try and clarify this:

If there is objective beauty, there has to be objective morality.
If morality is subjective, then beauty is subjective.

But the fact that something is beautiful is only because what lies behind such a beautiful thing is truthful, that is logical, and therefore objective.

So I say, that beauty is not subjective, but only seems that way because of a distorted perception from some people. Some people don't live in the truth, and others do, so it seems that subjective beauty does not exist, but this is only because their subjective view involves illogical thinking, that is thinking tainted with lies. Same goes for subjective morality. Morality seems to be subjective only because some hold more truth than others, so it appears morality is subjective. But when further examined, it's objective, to the dismay of relativists.

Btw, I know this isn't the thread for debating the logical consistency of moral relativism (because it is problematic) but if you want to discuss it somewhere else I'd be happy to.

MisterEpicurus

liveya wrote: »

Yes, objective beauty and objective morality, needs to be addressed here, I'll do my best..

So I say, that beauty is not subjective, but only seems that way because of a distorted perception from some people. Some people don't live in the truth, and others do, so it seems that subjective beauty does not exist, but this is only because their subjective view involves illogical thinking, that is thinking tainted with lies. Same goes for subjective morality. Morality seems to be subjective only because some hold more truth than others, so it appears morality is subjective. But when further examined, it's objective, to the dismay of relativists.

I think you've hit the nail on the head with this part.:cool:

liveya

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

I think you've hit the nail on the head with this part.:cool:

I know, it's astonishing how millions have believed this illusion.

On another note, to simplify things, when one is admiring smething beautiful, they are really admiring Gods intelligence, that is, intellect that is way beyond our understanding, hence 'beautiful'.

18AD

How can you tell who is "living in truth" and who is not?

If someone experiences more beauty than someone else are they living in complete truth?

liveya

18AD wrote: »

How can you tell who is "living in truth" and who is not?

If someone experiences more beauty than someone else are they living in complete truth?

Good questions.

It's difficult to judge most of the time, unless you know that person directly and observe their behaviour. Remember beauty is truthful, so if they are honest with others, then they are honest with themselves, therefore honest with God. Basically, if you know this person well and you know them to be truth tellers, that is honest folk. They are living in the truth, but one cannot really measure to a certain finer degree unless you know that person. Some obviously are more truthful in their life then others.

If someone experiences more beauty than someone else are they living in complete truth?

Maybe not living in complete truth, I think that's impossible. To live in complete truth, you'd have to be God, or saint-like. But yes, that's my claim, that the more beauty one sees in the world, the more truthful of a person they are because beauty is truthful. I hope that explains it.

If something being beautiful is truthful, as I've already discussed, and being moral is truthful, that is being honest in your treatment of yourself and others. Then if follows that the moral person recognizes more beauty than the immoral person. Amusingly, the saying Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, takes on a whole new meaning.

18AD

liveya wrote: »

Good questions.

It's difficult to judge most of the time, unless you know that person directly and observe their behaviour. Remember beauty is truthful, so if they are honest with others, then they are honest with themselves, therefore honest with God. Basically, if you know this person well and you know them to be truth tellers, that is honest folk. They are living in the truth, but one cannot really measure to a certain finer degree unless you know that person. Some obviously are more truthful in their life then others.

Is ugliness not truthful too? How does an ugly event lie? Is it not true by the very fact that it exists? Ugliness still adheres to an underlying logical and mathematical framework, unless you want to say that ugliness has a different source altogether.

Or perhaps it is just an instance of diminished truth, but in that case it is still truthful.

Maybe not living in complete truth, I think that's impossible. To live in complete truth, you'd have to be God, or saint-like. But yes, that's my claim, that the more beauty one sees in the world, the more truthful of a person they are because beauty is truthful. I hope that explains it.

If something being beautiful is truthful, as I've already discussed, and being moral is truthful, that is being honest in your treatment of yourself and others. Then if follows that the moral person recognizes more beauty than the immoral person. Amusingly, the saying Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, takes on a whole new meaning.

What of someone who witnesses beauty in suffering? Like many artistic retellings of sad events. How is an artistic expresion of tragedy beautiful?

Also, you are claiming that (beautiful) art itself is a moral activity. Van Gogh's Sunflowers is true.



Also, what about something like maths and physics? You say that something is beautiful because you can't know its incomprehensible logical underpinning. So is maths and physics inherently ugly because it attempts to make the incomprehensible comprehensible?

To use your magic trick analogy, if I know how the trick works, does it become ugly/untruthful/immoral?

liveya

18AD wrote: »

Is ugliness not truthful too? How does an ugly event lie? Is it not true by the very fact that it exists? Ugliness still adheres to an underlying logical and mathematical framework, unless you want to say that ugliness has a different source altogether.

Or perhaps it is just an instance of diminished truth, but in that case it is still truthful.



What of someone who witnesses beauty in suffering? Like many artistic retellings of sad events. How is an artistic expresion of tragedy beautiful?

Also, you are claiming that (beautiful) art itself is a moral activity. Van Gogh's Sunflowers is true.



Also, what about something like maths and physics? You say that something is beautiful because you can't know its incomprehensible logical underpinning. So is maths and physics inherently ugly because it attempts to make the incomprehensible comprehensible?

To use your magic trick analogy, if I know how the trick works, does it become ugly/untruthful/immoral?

You ask a lot of questions here, so I'll take them one by one.

1. Is ugliness not truthful too?

No, this is not what I am claiming. Let me explain. Ugliness is a distortion of the truth, that is, the logic that leads to ugliness is not moving towards truth, it's moving towards a dead end, which logically does not 'add up'.

The reason why something is ugly, is because it's not logical and therefore doesn't create a sense of awe, or wonder. I supopose the truthful person knows at a deeper level, that something doesn't add up, so it's deemed ugly. (Note that only truthful people can discover ugliness (untruths) without effort, because the untruths stand in contrast to their truths, that they hold, so ugliness is as clear as day.

2. How does an ugly event lie?

An ugly event is not in itself lying, an ugly event or ugly thing's logic, does not add up, and therefore isn't logical, so it's ugly. Think of the logical failure of ugliness as many cables leading to a source, but some of those cables are severed.

3. Or perhaps it is just an instance of diminished truth, but in that case it is still truthful.

No, something ugly is not truthful, it can't be or else it would be beautiful. If something is ugly, then the broken logic that undelies it cannot lead to the truth, that is the source, which would have otherwise made it beautiful.

4. What of someone who witnesses beauty in suffering? Like many artistic retellings of sad events. How is an artistic expresion of tragedy beautiful?

If someone thinks suffering is beautiful, then they are the depraved person I'm talking about, as suffering is not good, and therefore not truthful, and therefore not beautiful. Goodness, truth, beauty, it's all connected. I think what you mean, although I could be wrong is someone finding suffering pleasurable, the sadist for example. But anyone decent moral person would not find beauty in anyone suffering. Which is where the morality aspect of this makes an entrance.

5. Also, you are claiming that (beautiful) art itself is a moral activity. Van Gogh's Sunflowers is true.

There is a problem with that. The illusion of subjectivty is a problem, it's tempting to allow it to take over, but one must always take into account, when talking about something being (God is being) beautiful or not, is the state of the person experiencing this thing. If it's an untruthful person (immoral), then it's beauty will be lessened or absence, if it's a truthful (moral) person then it's beauty will be seen as clear as day.

So yes, whether something can be experienced as beautiful, is dependent on the moral state of that person. Some live moral lives, therefore easily seeing beauty in the world, but others don't so beauty is hidden, because they don't recognize the truth in the thing, so to them it's not beautiful, it's boring, or even ugly.

6. Also, what about something like maths and physics? You say that something is beautiful because you can't know its incomprehensible logical underpinning. So is maths and physics inherently ugly because it attempts to make the incomprehensible comprehensible?

Mathematics and physics are not ugly or beautiful, they are used to discover the logical framework used in the make up of things. Take a beautiful scenery for example. Scientists understand the make up of the mountains, and sun, and trees, or whatever else is in the picture, but they cannot comprehend in realtime, the enormous logic involved in its structural makeup. It's impossible to expect any man to think at this level, so he just admires the scenery, because it's out of his grasp to understand all of it collectively, which is what allows the realization of that landscape scene to be beautiful.

7. To use your magic trick analogy, if I know how the trick works, does it become ugly/untruthful/immoral?

No, it's unreasonable to say the actual logical process itself is immoral, because morality only applies to the subject experiencing the magic trick, and only to him. When you know how the trick works, it doesn't become ugly (because we're not talking about aesthetics here), or instead we'll say boring, or unmagical, it's working is simply known, but it's certainly not ugly, because the trick's mechanics are now understood, it's just figured out. This is why children see th world as magical, because they don't understand how it works, so it creates a sense of wonder. When talking about the magic trick analogy, it's not a matter of morality or beauty. But only wonder.

liveya

Beauty is objective, that is, the actual beauty or truth lies outside of human opinion. Two periquisites are necessary for something to be recognized as beautiful: The subject observing and the object being observed. The following chart explains this:

Case 1: IF the subject is truthful AND the object is truthful THEN beauty is recognized.

Case 2: IF the subject is untruthful AND the object is truthful THEN beauty is not recognized, resulting in an illusion of boredom, or ugliness.

Case 3: IF the subject is truthful AND the object is untruthful THEN boredom or ugliness is recognized.

Case 4: IF the subject is untruthful AND the object is untruthful THEN an illusion occurs, and beauty appears to be seen but isn't. The untruthfulness of the subject suits the untruthfulness of the object, and apparent beauty is there, but not in reality because beauty is truth, not untruth.

Therefore truthfulness is required on both subject and object to recognize beauty. If one or the other is missing, beauty is failed to be recognized.

There you have it. Beauty is objective.

18AD

liveya wrote: »

1. Is ugliness not truthful too?

No, this is not what I am claiming. Let me explain. Ugliness is a distortion of the truth, that is, the logic that leads to ugliness is not moving towards truth, it's moving towards a dead end, which logically does not 'add up'.

The reason why something is ugly, is because it's not logical and therefore doesn't create a sense of awe, or wonder. I supopose the truthful person knows at a deeper level, that something doesn't add up, so it's deemed ugly. (Note that only truthful people can discover ugliness (untruths) without effort, because the untruths stand in contrast to their truths, that they hold, so ugliness is as clear as day.

What is the logic that underlies truth and ugliness? How do you know about it? What do you mean by logically doesn't "add up" with regard to ugliness?

liveya

18AD wrote: »

What is the logic that underlies truth and ugliness? How do you know about it? What do you mean by logically doesn't "add up" with regard to ugliness?

Take a look at my beauty chart, home made goodness. It should help you understand when beauty is recognized.

1. What is the logic that underlies truth and ugliness?

bad logic, or distorted untruthful logic (severed cables) is what results in ugliness, in the object being viewed that is, dependent on the subject's state of truth also, of course.

Exact opposite for beauty there.

2. What do you mean by logically doesn't "add up" with regard to ugliness?

Bad math basically. Lets say a horrible painting was put on display. It didn't tell the truth, but conveyed a lie. So it was ugly. The logic that resulted in the conclusion, which is what the painting was conveying is bad, or false. Not logical, so it is ugly.

Btw, this expalins also, why modern art or modern buildings are boring (especially those modern lego like buildings). It is so simple, there is no complex logic involved in its making that is too difficult to comprehend, so it fails to satisfy as beauty.

18AD

liveya wrote: »

1. What is the logic that underlies truth and ugliness?

bad logic, or distorted untruthful logic (severed cables) is what results in ugliness, in the object being viewed that is, dependent on the subject's state of truth also, of course.

Exact opposite for beauty there.

Do you have an example of an ugly object and its bad logic? What is an ugly thing lying about?

2. What do you mean by logically doesn't "add up" with regard to ugliness?

Bad math basically. Lets say a horrible painting was put on display. It didn't tell the truth, but conveyed a lie. So it was ugly. The logic that resulted in the conclusion, which is what the painting was conveying is bad, or false. Not logical, so it is ugly.

Btw, this expalins also, why modern art or modern buildings are ugly or boring (especially those modern lego like buildings). It is so simple, there is not logic involved in its making that is too difficult to compreghend, so it fails to satisfy as beautiful.

What math are you talking about? What is the ugly painting lying about? Inanimate objects can't even make truth claims.

By your definition simple things can't be beautiful. And again, comprehensible things, by your definition, are not beautiful. If being too difficult to comprehend is a condition of beauty, then everything you understand is not beautiful.

liveya

18AD wrote: »

Do you have an example of an ugly object and its bad logic? What is an ugly thing lying about?

What math are you talking about? What is the ugly painting lying about? Inanimate objects can't even make truth claims.

By your definition simple things can't be beautiful. And again, comprehensible things, by your definition, are not beautiful. If being too difficult to comprehend is a condition of beauty, then everything you understand is not beautiful.

No, you misunderstood. You see this is quite complex. I'll do my best..

1.Do you have an example of an ugly object and its bad logic?

Yes, I'll give you one but its ugliness will only be recognized if you yourself, in this case are truthful yourself. This is why beauty, or ugliness is objective.

A murdered woman. With a rope around her neck. She was strangled.

Now, you will only recognize its ugliness if you are not depraved, that is truthful, or moral, or a decent human being. Do you understand? Can you picture this in your head? Is it ugly? I hope so! Now, here is why this object is ugly: it's telling a lie. The lie is that this woman, whoever she was was not worth anything, her life was not precious, the liar was the person who murdered her, saying she was worthless. If you're a decent person hopefully, you'll disagree. Therefore in this case, the third case of my chart applies:

Case 3: IF the subject is truthful (thats you) AND the object is untruthful (the murdered woman) THEN ugliness is recognized.

2. What math are you talking about? What is the ugly painting lying about? Inanimate objects can't even make truth claims.

I never said the painting itself was lying, or maybe I did. What I meant was the artist himself was tellling a lie, through the painting. The message that the painting sends is the lie. That is, if you are a truthful, moral person and he paints an untruthful painting, that is, a painting which conveys an untruth of some sort, then you will recognize the lie, and thereofre find it ugly. Because it's not truthful, beauty is truth.


3. By your definition simple things can't be beautiful. And again, comprehensible things, by your definition, are not beautiful. If being too difficult to comprehend is a condition of beauty, then everything you understand is not beautiful.

No, simple things can be beautiful, but if you understand them, you understand them. This does nothing to anything. Like when a child knows how a magic trick works. The magic trick is not false or ugly, just figured out. But nothing untruthful about it.

Comprehensible things can be beautiful, as long as its truthful, that is logical. All the things you understand are not ugly, or not beautiful, it's just figured out.

So:

The more complex something is (that is, deeper logic) and the more untruthful something is, the more ugly it will be, if you are a truthful person observing it.

I am very tired, I'll be back tomorrow.

Joe1919

liveya wrote: »

.... beauty is truth.

The romantic poet Keats would agree with you. Am I right in guessing that you are a romantic at heart?

'Beauty is truth, truth beauty,-that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.'

http://www.bartleby.com/101/625.html

But not everyone agrees.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ode_on_a_Grecian_Urn#Beauty_is_truth_debate

As regards my own opinion, I would be reluctant to link beauty with truth or goodness, because this assumes a sort of hedonism in making what is beautiful or pleasurable the good. (For as something to be beautiful, it must be pleasing.)

liveya

Joe1919 wrote: »

The romantic poet Keats would agree with you. Am I right in guessing that you are a romantic at heart?

'Beauty is truth, truth beauty,-that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.'

http://www.bartleby.com/101/625.html

But not everyone agrees.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ode_on_a_Grecian_Urn#Beauty_is_truth_debate

Yes, I know not everyone agrees, this only serves to prove my point. If some don't recognize beauty, this does not mean that beauty doesn't exist, just because some are untruthful and don't recognize beauty, it means that some are more truthful than others. The truthful (moral) people will recognize beauty, and others won't. So it seems subjective, but is really illusory.

The same way people who are depraved attract others who are also depraved, they see an untruthfulness in others, that is in themselves, and are attracted to them.

Also if some people are truthful, they will attract other people and be drawn to those who are truthful, because they see an image of themsleves in others. Hence, "birds of a feather, flock together".

The subjectivist's arrogance reveals itself, when he says when something is beautiful, only because he thinks it is. He becomes his own truth, or God. But if beauty was subjective, then beauty or truth doesn't exist at all, it's just illusions or ideas in their head. In all honesty (oh the irony), the subjectivist cannot claim anything to be beautiful or ugly.

The same goes for morality.

The person who beleives in beauty being objective, is sneered at, and seems arrogant, because they claim to hold the truth to whether something is beautiful or not. But if others fail to recognize beauty, then why is that the objectivist's fault?

Subjectivity arises out of some being more truthful than others, simple as. But the postmodernist rejects this of course. Because truth being objective undermines the foundation of any postmodernists life.

18AD

liveya wrote: »

3. By your definition simple things can't be beautiful. And again, comprehensible things, by your definition, are not beautiful. If being too difficult to comprehend is a condition of beauty, then everything you understand is not beautiful.

No, simple things can be beautiful, but if you understand them, you understand them. This does nothing to anything. Like when a child knows how a magic trick works. The magic trick is not false or ugly, just figured out. But nothing untruthful about it.

Your example of the ugly building was that it was ugly because it was not suffuciently complex. So you have in fact said that beauty requires sufficient complexity.

Now you're saying this is not the case. So I ask you, if beauty is not related to sufficient complexity, why was the building ugly?



Also, the example of the building, the murdered woman, and the work of art are all tracable back to a human act of truth or lie, therefore rendering the objective status of beauty in the object/scenario relative to a human act. Thereby rendering the object/scenario not objectively beautiful/ugly but only derivitavely so.


What of unintentional acts/events? So for example, what if someone is cycling along and the wind blows them off their bike and they break their arm. What is the lie behind this ugliness?

Priori

liveya wrote:

A murdered woman. With a rope around her neck. She was strangled.

Now, you will only recognize its ugliness if you are not depraved, that is truthful, or moral, or a decent human being. Do you understand? Can you picture this in your head? Is it ugly? I hope so! Now, here is why this object is ugly: it's telling a lie. The lie is that this woman, whoever she was was not worth anything, her life was not precious, the liar was the person who murdered her, saying she was worthless. If you're a decent person hopefully, you'll disagree. Therefore in this case, the third case of my chart applies:

Case 3: IF the subject is truthful (thats you) AND the object is untruthful (the murdered woman) THEN ugliness is recognized.

That there is a 'lie' inherent in the scene of a murdered woman is what I would call a subjective judgement.

RE: your beauty chart. I find this ugly to my aesthetic sensiblities. Does that make it an untruthful object, or me a untruthful subject?

liveya

Priori wrote: »

That there is a 'lie' inherent in the scene of a murdered woman is what I would call a subjective judgement.

RE: your beauty chart. I find this ugly to my aesthetic sensiblities. Does that make it an untruthful object, or me a untruthful subject?

In light of your first comment: It is not up to the subject to decide if the ugly scene tells a lie, the lie exists without you even being able to recognize it. So the subject has no say in deciding if a scene, or a painting for example, contains a lie. If the painting in of itself contains an untruth, then only if the person viewing it, is a truthful person, will recognize the untruth therein.

Your second comment, although which illicited a sneaky chuckle, is a good one. If the beauty chart is indeed ugly, and you are a truthful person, which is difficult for even the subject to be conscious of, then yes, you will recognize the ugliness in this chart. What I'm trying to say is, the subject has no say whatsoever if the object is beautiful or ugly, it depends on the subject, and their state, if they recognize it. I've had to repeat this a million time now, to the dismay of my fingertips.

liveya

18AD wrote: »

Your example of the ugly building was that it was ugly because it was not suffuciently complex. So you have in fact said that beauty requires sufficient complexity.

Now you're saying this is not the case. So I ask you, if beauty is not related to sufficient complexity, why was the building ugly?



Also, the example of the building, the murdered woman, and the work of art are all tracable back to a human act of truth or lie, therefore rendering the objective status of beauty in the object/scenario relative to a human act. Thereby rendering the object/scenario not objectively beautiful/ugly but only derivitavely so.


What of unintentional acts/events? So for example, what if someone is cycling along and the wind blows them off their bike and they break their arm. What is the lie behind this ugliness?

Considering the person on the bike. I would say the lie is the denial of the cyclist, that the windy day would be of no danger to them, but unfortunately for them it was. If they were honest with themselves, and admitted it that the wind could have blown them over, in that there was a danger, then maybe they would have been walking instead, or walking beside their bicycle. They lied that the wind can not be dangerous. So their quiet dishonesty earned them a broken arm.

1. Your example of the ugly building was that it was ugly because it was not suffuciently complex. So you have in fact said that beauty requires sufficient complexity.

I said that if a building is not complex, it's not ugly; It's just boring, or uninteresting, in that the mathematics behind its construction was not too overwheling to your brain, so it failed to create a sense of awe, or wonder. Very similar to a magic trick, which does not fill you with wonder, or excitement. The logic is fine, but you just don't find it interesting anymore because you understand how it works.

18AD

liveya wrote: »

Considering the person on the bike. I would say the lie is the denial of the cyclist, that the windy day would be of no danger to them, but unfortunately for them it was. If they were honest with themselves, and admitted it that the wind could have blown them over, in that there was a danger, then maybe they would have been walking instead, or walking beside their bicycle. They lied that the wind can not be dangerous. So their quiet dishonesty earned them a broken arm.

You're still placing the fault with the person. In effect, you are saying that it's not the object/event itself that is ugly, but the decision behind it is. On this account only decisions can be objectively beautiful or ugly, if you can apply the logic of truth and lie to every decision.

So to take a weird example. What if someone was being nice based on a lie? Say for example, they thought they would receive great praise for doing something good. But this was misguided and they receive no praise. The event of donation is still seen as helpful, it is a nice gesture, but it is based on a lie.

My example was of an unexpected accident. If they had known they were going to get blown over, then yes, it would probably be somewhat their fault. But what is the tipping point between being probable and not?

If all accidents are down to peoples ignorance of the possible outcomes, you are in effect saying that it was their fault. In a weird sense also, that they deserved it.

And I say "possible outcomes", because it would appear that you even consider highly unprobable events to be worhty of thwarting ones plans.

What about a completely unforseen accident. A tsunami for example. What is the lie behind its destruction?