Beauty and Morality are Species of Value/

[coberst]

Beauty and Morality are Species of Value/

It is human nature to be attracted to the mere appearance of things; the survival of many kinds of animals is dictated by the ability of the male and female to attract one another resulting from the colors and forms of eye appeal. We dress in the morning often based upon what type of trial we are facing; we gain a sense of confidence when we are confident of our appearance.

Our culture provides us little incentive to examine the common principles of our nature in such matters as morality and aesthetics. Such principles represent the very foundation for our actions. We finish our formal schooling without even rudimentary comprehension of these fundamental aspects of our nature. Not only do we finish our schooling with this fundamental ignorance but we leave schooling with a disdain and dismissive attitude of such matters.

We finish schooling with a prejudice against our self. We develop a satisfaction only when we think of our self as being surrounded by objects and laws independent of our self. We finish school unaware of the psychology which is the instrument of our speculations about these laws and principles. We aggressively dismiss the exclusively “subjective and human department of imagination and emotion…we have still to recognize in practice the truth that from these despised feelings of ours the great world of perception derives all its value, if not also is existence…had our perceptions no connection with our pleasures, we should soon close our eyes on this world”.

I think that specialization is perhaps a necessity but it is not necessary, nor is it health, for us to graduate sophomores who lack the rudimentary knowledge of fundamental human capacities and limitations? Also the self congratulatory attitude resulting from a mistaken hubris leaves us handicapped in any effort to develop a sophisticated comprehension of our problems after our school daze are over.

Criticism emphasizes deliberate judgment whereas enjoyment emphasizes the instinctive and immediate.

Criticism implies judgment and aesthetes (having an affecting sensitivity to beauty) imply perception. To reach a common ground between the two we must consider perceptions that are more than passive but are critical. Also we must adjust our notion of criticism to include “those judgments of value which are instinctive and immediate, that is, to include pleasures and pain”.

If we also narrow our concept of aesthetics (pleasing in appearance) so as to exclude all perceptions which are not appreciations, i.e. which do not find value in their objects, we can reach a “sphere of critical or appreciative perception”.

Thus, aesthetics is “concerned with the perception of values”.

Self consciousness is the precursor of the possibility of worth. For the existence of ‘good’ in any form, emotional consciousness is required. “Observation will not do, appreciation is required.”

From this we can assert an axiom that is important for all moral philosophy; and science of morality should it ever come to be. “There is no value apart from some appreciation of it.”

Spinoza informs us that we desire nothing because it is good but that it is good because we desire it. We can find value in that which is not instinctively good only because it is derivative of the instinctively appreciated. “The verbal and mechanical proposition, that passes for judgment of worth, is the great cloak of ineptitude in these matters…Verbal judgments are often instruments of thought but it is not by them that worth can ultimately be determined.”

Quotes from “The Sense of Beauty” by George Santayana

[Lust Hogg]

I am also also quite familiar with Santayana. I think whats on the table here is the possibility that our own subjective valuation, and subsequent attraction to objects of beauty, is nothing but the reflection of internal processes projected on to these objects. And if we are ever to achieve some sort perfected, objective science of aesthetics, then we must understand how these processes dictate or determine the scope of of our aesthetic experiences? Well if this is what you mean, then i partially agree. It seems as though an explanation of objects of beauty and our innate desire to seek them out, must emanate from the agent itself. But, to focus entirely on this one aspect of aesthetic experience is neglecting what could be described as the external stimuli, namely objects of beauty. Of course understanding the process by which we form emotional attachments to certain objects rather than others, could be attained through a comprehensive examination of human consciousness, but to suggest that this is all that is required in understanding aesthetic experience is to reduce aesthetic judgment to something which is irretrievably subjective. To deny the existence of objective properties that exist within objects themselves is reduce aesthetics to a relativistic solipsism. We must understand how human consciousness forms special relationships with objects such as sunsets, trees, and other external phenomenon all in a way that does not ignore the causal efficacy of these stimuli. Aesthetics needs to direct it focus towards understanding the species or nature of the relationship that exists between consciousness and objects of beauty. Perhaps Psychology is the right discipline for what you had in mind, but i don't think Aesthetics should ever attempt to emulate or use science as a paradigm of inquiry.

Side note, Coberst once again your depth of knowledge and extensive understanding in a wide range of subjects is much appreciated.

[coberst]

Lust Hogg

I think that you and I have differing definitions of the word "science".

I think that science is an empirical, disciplined, and systematic study of a domain of knowledge.

[Lust Hogg]

Oh and i agree as well. i just don't think Morality, Ethics, or Aesthetics is in any way is empirical or systematic. Goodness, Badness, or the beautiful are not inherently quantifiable like certain subject matter that concerns science . That was my point. I definitely think these discipline should be held to similar standards of rigor as witnessed with science. I just think nowadays people mistakenly ascribe an almost divine status to Science, and assume that scientific methodology is an all encompassing road map to truth.

[The Atheist]

It is human nature to be attracted to the mere appearance of things; the survival of many kinds of animals is dictated by the ability of the male and female to attract one another resulting from the colors and forms of eye appeal. We dress in the morning often based upon what type of trial we are facing; we gain a sense of confidence when we are confident of our appearance.

You contradict yourself. It's not human nature at all, it's just nature - evolutionary successful nature.

Magpies are attracted to bright objects; does that make them aesthetes?


Our culture provides us little incentive to examine the common principles of our nature in such matters as morality and aesthetics. Such principles represent the very foundation for our actions. We finish our formal schooling without even rudimentary comprehension of these fundamental aspects of our nature. Not only do we finish our schooling with this fundamental ignorance but we leave schooling with a disdain and dismissive attitude of such matters.

Which "we" are you discussing here?

I certainly left school with a morality which is largely unchanged 35 years later. Aside from which, the most important thing in your argument is that I don't want morality or aesthetics taught at school - I want maths, language and science to be taught at school and values to be taught at home.

If many or most parents are incapable of teaching those subjects - and the world of 2009 makes me think they are - then I doubt trying it at school will work anyway.


We finish schooling with a prejudice against our self...

I think you're just making a category error and need to change "we" to "I", because you're well off base, even in generalisation.

[The Comedian]

You contradict yourself. It's not human nature at all, it's just nature - evolutionary successful nature.

Magpies are attracted to bright objects; does that make them aesthetes?

Can you explain this some more? What I get from your statement is that if an aesthetic sensibility is derived from evolution then it cannot be an aesthetic sense because it came from evolution. <<< Eech! That's nasty way to put what I'm trying to ask.

How about this?: why can't aesthetics come from natural evolution? We have an aesthetic. right? And we evolved, right? Are you saying that our aesthetic sensibility comes from some where outside of traditional, biological nature?

[The Atheist]

Can you explain this some more? What I get from your statement is that if an aesthetic sensibility is derived from evolution then it cannot be an aesthetic sense because it came from evolution. <<< Eech! That's nasty way to put what I'm trying to ask.

How about this?: why can't aesthetics come from natural evolution? We have an aesthetic. right? And we evolved, right? Are you saying that our aesthetic sensibility comes from some where outside of traditional, biological nature?

I'll clarify.

Our appreciation of aesthetics is an evolutionary advantage. As the brightest peacock gets the mate, so does the hairiest/strongest/whateverest is the most sought after trait of the time.

That has expanded with our consciousness to include an appreciation of other bright objects, as in the magpie. These bright objects now include songs, ballet, sculpture and every art form we can come up with.

That's why I think it's silly to put rules in place over what is aesthetically pleasing. One man's La Boheme is another man's Number of the Beast.

[Lust Hogg]

Atheist, i do not think that you can rightfully reduce all aesthetic appreciation and judgment to some arbitrary or relativistic model. if this were the case, then i could rightfully assert that Britney Spears is a better composer of music then Mozart or Tchaikovsky. Additionally, my artistic representations of my dog would rival any of Picasso's finest achievements. there are certain cannons of judgment in aesthetics, the difficulty is in defining and identifying which are valid. Aesthetic judgment is not hopelessly subjective. If it was, why are so many people inherently drawn to the beauty of sunsets ?

[blazeofglory]

Of course both attributes are indispensable values. We proceed in life with both of these values.

Beauty is reflected everywhere and we can not do without beauty. So are moral values. Life can not flow without moral values.

We rise above brutal attributes just because we cherish moral values.

[The Atheist]

Atheist, i do not think that you can rightfully reduce all aesthetic appreciation and judgment to some arbitrary or relativistic model. if this were the case, then i could rightfully assert that Britney Spears is a better composer of music then Mozart or Tchaikovsky.

Unfortunately, you can say that Britney is better than Mozart.

This is a long-running argument I've been having with some of the literary aesthetes here - check out my Shakespeare thread (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41299)- aesthetic appreciation is learned.

If it were true that some things were aesthetically pleasing to all people, all art would take the same form, and it clearly doesn't.


Additionally, my artistic representations of my dog would rival any of Picasso's finest achievements. there are certain cannons of judgment in aesthetics, the difficulty is in defining and identifying which are valid. Aesthetic judgment is not hopelessly subjective. If it was, why are so many people inherently drawn to the beauty of sunsets ?

Are they?

Or do they learn it from their parents telling them it's a beautiful sunset?

Your dog isn't a great example, because dog's don't draw very well, but an elephant (http://www.snopes.com/photos/animals/elephantpainting.asp)and Picasso? Sure.

There is no measure by which you can claim Picasso is a better artist than an elephant without raising both subjectivity and cultural norms.

Unpopular view, but until there's an algorithm written which shows why Shakespeare is superior to a Marvel comic, Picasso is superior to elephants and why Britney is better than Mozart, I ain't buying.

All I see in opposition are pleas for cultural bias.

[Mathor]

I think the Atheist is right on the money here. Truth is different cultures view beauty differently. In areas of Asia a woman is deemed beautiful if she is very large, whereas Western Society views small and skinny women as beautiful. From culture to culture you find differences in what beauty is.

So if you set a standard for beauty you insist that other culture's views are wrong.

Some see noise as beautiful, whereas some see violins as beautiful. Beauty is truly, in the eye of the beholder.

[Lust Hogg]

if you (atheist) wholeheartedly endorse the idea that beauty is something which is relativistic, contingent upon the context of ones development and as a consequence, will result in in individuals having varying ideas of what qualifies as beautiful, then i disagree.it seems as though your saying that everything concerning beauty is absolutely arbitrary and in no way objective. If this is the case, then my dog who in my mind is a revered foot painter, should have his foot -paintings in every art gallery in the world. My written words should be the subject of debate for centuries to come, and in my mind should serve as the paradigmatic display of intellect and wit. But, it seems as though some would have a problem with these bold assertions. Obviously, there are standards by which to judge works of art, that most certainly take into consideration cultural relativity. What seems to be the crux of your concern is that human beings are contextual automatons, that are helplessly shaped and molded by circumstance. I disagree, i can identify my own cultural prejudices and expose my self to a variance of ideas and thought that can mitigate against my cultural predilections. Beauty is something that open for debate, of course, but to outright suggest that it is wholly arbitrary is to allow any statement concerning artistic merit or validity to be accepted without debate or analysis.

[billyjack]

i get the feeling, lust hogg, that although you think beauty has relative qualities, yer arguing for a platonic "form of the good" and some sort of recognition faculty which is inherent in all human beings that can distinguish this "form of the good" from riff-raff.

here's a summary of aristotles refutation of a specific form of the good that plato dialogued in favor of. its rather fitting for this thread


Aristotle claims that abstractions like Beauty cannot be cast as absolutes, independent of temporal human experience; the Idea of Beauty changes with time and individual perceptions and cannot (as Plato felt) exist forever as a concrete standard.

[Mathor]

if you (atheist) wholeheartedly endorse the idea that beauty is something which is relativistic, contingent upon the context of ones development and as a consequence, will result in in individuals having varying ideas of what qualifies as beautiful, then i disagree.it seems as though your saying that everything concerning beauty is absolutely arbitrary and in no way objective. If this is the case, then my dog who in my mind is a revered foot painter, should have his foot -paintings in every art gallery in the world. My written words should be the subject of debate for centuries to come, and in my mind should serve as the paradigmatic display of intellect and wit. But, it seems as though some would have a problem with these bold assertions. Obviously, there are standards by which to judge works of art, that most certainly take into consideration cultural relativity. What seems to be the crux of your concern is that human beings are contextual automatons, that are helplessly shaped and molded by circumstance. I disagree, i can identify my own cultural prejudices and expose my self to a variance of ideas and thought that can mitigate against my cultural predilections. Beauty is something that open for debate, of course, but to outright suggest that it is wholly arbitrary is to allow any statement concerning artistic merit or validity to be accepted without debate or analysis.

and what if i find the paintings of your three-legged dog to be artistic, is my opinion not valid? Your way of thinking is closeminded. If I like a particular artist and you think it's not beautiful, the good thing is myself or someone else might find it beautiful, so it is art. Artistic merit is completely and totally subjective. I think, just like the Atheist said, Picasso was never given credit for his until much later in his life. You couldn't possibly try to argue that it is not art by today's standards, but in Picasso's day his work was not considered art by his peers. It is your way of thinking that destroys the dreams of all the Picassos in the world out there right now, just waiting to do something unlike anyone has ever done before.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JkQDYN8gHY&feature=related

[The Atheist]

if you (atheist) wholeheartedly endorse the idea that beauty is something which is relativistic, contingent upon the context of ones development and as a consequence, will result in in individuals having varying ideas of what qualifies as beautiful, then i disagree.

Then we would all agree on what is beautiful, and we don't.

I can't make it any plainer than that.


it seems as though your saying that everything concerning beauty is absolutely arbitrary and in no way objective.

You seem to be confusing these terms, because I've said it's not arbitrary, but is subjective.


If this is the case, then my dog who in my mind is a revered foot painter, should have his foot -paintings in every art gallery in the world. My written words should be the subject of debate for centuries to come, and in my mind should serve as the paradigmatic display of intellect and wit. But, it seems as though some would have a problem with these bold assertions. Obviously, there are standards by which to judge works of art, that most certainly take into consideration cultural relativity.

Unfortunately, you're forgetting the most important thing of all - popularity. Take a listen to any commercial radio station - you will find things torture chambers use as white noise being played for artistic reasons. Your dog may well be worthy of being in every art gallery, but until you can convince the owners of those galleries that people will pay to see the works, then you're going to be on the footpath.


What seems to be the crux of your concern is that human beings are contextual automatons, that are helplessly shaped and molded by circumstance. I disagree, i can identify my own cultural prejudices and expose my self to a variance of ideas and thought that can mitigate against my cultural predilections. Beauty is something that open for debate, of course, but to outright suggest that it is wholly arbitrary is to allow any statement concerning artistic merit or validity to be accepted without debate or analysis.

Again, you're confusing what arbitrary means.

In the end, you disagree. That's fine - lots of people do, but until a genuine consensus can be reached on what constitutes aesthetic appeal, I can't buy it.

[Ohmyscience]

How can we define what beauty is to begin with? However I do get a sense that, contrary to what theatheist has said, people do have parallels in their appreciation for aesthetics. While I do agree that most cultures have a differing opinion of what is beautiful, there is a consensus that things which have symmetry are beautiful. Especially in physics where a fundamental equation is usually elegant and symmetrical. Not that physics is beauty but I think most people can appreciate that kind of resonance. Same thing with music. While britney spears and mozart will be enjoyed by different people, they have in common a system of scales which is the foundation of western music. Even though this may seem like an argument for training, I think you would have to train yourself to not enjoy tonal music. Resonance in music is much more favorable than dissonance (correct me if I'm wrong). It takes a lot more abstraction and training to enjoy webern and boulez rather than beethoven or mozart.

[Mathor]

How can we define what beauty is to begin with? However I do get a sense that, contrary to what theatheist has said, people do have parallels in their appreciation for aesthetics. While I do agree that most cultures have a differing opinion of what is beautiful, there is a consensus that things which have symmetry are beautiful. Especially in physics where a fundamental equation is usually elegant and symmetrical. Not that physics is beauty but I think most people can appreciate that kind of resonance. Same thing with music. While britney spears and mozart will be enjoyed by different people, they have in common a system of scales which is the foundation of western music. Even though this may seem like an argument for training, I think you would have to train yourself to not enjoy tonal music. Resonance in music is much more favorable than dissonance (correct me if I'm wrong). It takes a lot more abstraction and training to enjoy webern and boulez rather than beethoven or mozart.

but there are so many people, like myself, who enjoy abstract art and even enjoy the works of John Cage the musician and noise music of that sort such as is used in all of Stanley Kubrick's movies (the abstract russian classical composers from the 50-60's). Like yes, there are a lot of people who enjoy tonal music, or enjoy Beethoven, and i am also one of those people. But I don't think that you can ever raise the idea that I chose to like nontonal music because I deny the truly beautiful music, I just really do find nontonal music to be artistic and to beautiful and to be musical. You can make the argument that that makes my opinions very strange or uncommon, yes, but that I am wrong or being rebellious or am denying nature for my aesthetic opinions, no.

[blazeofglory]

We keep on progressing and we do so because we appreciate beauty instinctively. But we appreciate morality in lesser degrees.

[Lust Hogg]

Arbitrary..." subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision" seems pretty similar to the idea that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. i understand what it means. And mathor don't claim that i am a closed minded thinker please. i take the time to give response on a public forum, on a subject which i am familiar with and you claim that i am closed minded. That's not fair. My main assertion concerning this subject is that certain pieces of Art that are identifiably beautiful, have some transcendent quality of beauty that is endemic to all great works. I understand that the determination of greatness and goodness is sometimes subjective and arbitrary,but i don't think all beauty is as consequence subjective. There is some level of agreement and consistency among opinion concerning a vast majority of Art. Maybe that does not warrant the assertion that beauty can have objective qualities, but, it also does not confirm the idea that all beauty is wholly subjective

[Mathor]

Arbitrary..." subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision" seems pretty similar to the idea that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. i understand what it means. And mathor don't claim that i am a closed minded thinker please. i take the time to give response on a public forum, on a subject which i am familiar with and you claim that i am closed minded. That's not fair. My main assertion concerning this subject is that certain pieces of Art that are identifiably beautiful, have some transcendent quality of beauty that is endemic to all great works. I understand that the determination of greatness and goodness is sometimes subjective and arbitrary,but i don't think all beauty is as consequence subjective. There is some level of agreement and consistency among opinion concerning a vast majority of Art. Maybe that does not warrant the assertion that beauty can have objective qualities, but, it also does not confirm the idea that all beauty is wholly subjective

i didn't mean to infer that you were closeminded, but I understand what you are saying, and I just simply do not agree. What you find to be beautiful and what I find to be beautiful are completely different. I can point something out to my mom like a tune or a painting or even driving through town ill say to my mom "isn't that beautiful!" and she will say "no that's not beautiful", because my mother and i have very different views on what is beautiful. I find smokey cities to be beautiful whereas my mom finds country landscapes to be beautiful. I find them dull. There isn't an ounce of beauty there in my opinion. So how could you say that generally there is a concenscus among humans on what is beautiful if I don't find any of it beautiful. I wasn't meaning to sound rude or mean, I just disagree. All humans are different and find different things to be beautiful for different reasons to them. It's all subjective to opinion. All humans instinctually know what beauty is FOR THEM, i'm just saying it's different for every single person. Sometimes a couple people form together and realize they all agree on what is beautiful i.e The Academy Awards etc etc. But those are just a couple people who agree, there is no general concensus among humans about what is beautiful.

[Oniw17]

Sure beauty is subjective, but how is that the case with morality? Isn't the basis of morality empathy, which most people and some other mammals possess? I know that utilitarianism is based on not causing pain(including psychological pain for lack of liberty), which is a subjective state, but one which nearly everyone alive has experienced. At some point, when that's the case, doesn't it become objective? All experience is subjective, but we don't say that the sun doesn't exist because it can only be measured by our subjective perceptions of it or though devices built by beings which had only a subjective basis to come up with the design. You could say that some people have no empathy, but some people are blind deaf and dumb and can't observe many of the things around them the same way a normal person would, and you wouldn't say that the existence of colour or sound are purely subjective. Then again, maybe there's more than one way to empathise, which would pretty much mean the rest of my post is wrong and a complete waste of time, but I didn't think of that until just now.