Beauty Does Not Exist

Hey guys I am back and here to give you another philosophical morsel. In my humble opinion beauty does not exist. I say this for the simple fact that beauty is a perceptual matter and something that greatly varies from person to person. For beauty to truly exist should not there be something that is universally held as beautiful? What I am driving at here is that we have the term beautiful and we have gone so far as to define it be it on a technical merit or other and yet there is no universal law or symbol to represent the term. The thing about beauty is just as I said previously it resides in a plane of perception. Furthermore, this belief is held for any form of beauty outer or inner. Our moral compasses all point in different directions in regards to how we hold our fellow man and our eyes can see something as glorious while another set holds that same sight in disdain. With such sharp contrasts in what people view as beautiful and what beauty at the core really is can we even say that it has ever existed to begin with?

To refer to something as "beautiful" is merely a shallow compliment; and exhibiting of adoration, a lie fueled by ulterior motives.

So as the consideration of aesthetics (significant form) goes, "beauty" is not relevant. Dismiss it.

It seems to me that in accordance with the principle of charity, the burden of proof for the question of whether beauty exists falls on the person asserting that it does not. There isn't any clear way, so far as I know, to prove deductively nonexistence or existence (of anything) because of the problems of existential import.

So rather than talking about the question of the existence of beauty, perhaps we could talk about whether it's meaningful to assert something has the attribute or property of being beautiful as determined empirically. In this manner, the question is answerable simply by setting up stipulative criteria of what counts as something being beautiful.

Then, I take Poisonedphilosopher22 to be asserting that existent things cannot meaningfully be described with these attributes. But this would in turn seem to imply that the statement above “…our eyes can see something as glorious while another set holds that same sight in disdain” would be meaningless if we assume “glorious” is a suitable paraphrase for “beautiful.”

Almost any book on aesthetics describes such criteria for physical objects, these range from the austere proportions of the golden ratio based on phi to the computer studies of the average ratios of features of the object under examination. (Sorry, since Forum rules prevent me from providing links of examples, for the former, google "golden ratio" and for the latter, for example, google "Science Daily 'Beauty Machine'.") For empirical evidence for beauty in conceptual objects, google "Beauty Is Truth In Mathematical Intuition: First Empirical Evidence" again from the site "Science Daily."

Turning to the arguments presented by Poisonedphilosopher22:

(1) "[B]eauty does not exist ... [because] beauty is a perceptual matter and something that greatly varies from person to person."

Reply: The existence of any natural object is a perceptual matter; no two persons ever see the same object in exactly the same way because of, among other things, differences of perspective, change over time, and acuteness of faculties.

(2) "[B]eauty does not exist ... [because there is not] something that is universally held as beautiful ... and there is no universal law or symbol to represent the term."

Reply: First, a thesis is not considered true because it is based on universal belief. Putting aside _ad populum_ considerations, if this were true, no assertion could ever be proved since no assertion is believed by everyone. In the 14th century, I think it could be said that the earth being flat was "universally held." Second, our best example of knowledge of what exists comes from science, yet no one supposes that current scientific laws are not subject to improvement and revision.

(3) "[B]eauty does not exist ... [because] our eyes can see something as glorious while another set holds that same sight in disdain."

Reply: It seems to me that if it is maintained that someone can see something as being glorious (i.e., beautiful) and someone else sees it in disdain (i.e., not beautiful), then these words do have meanings. It seems reasonable to conclude the question being debated resolves into the description of the criteria on which these judgments can be based.

This argument wont be pertinently addressed by supplanting synonyms or tweaking perceived definitions and meanings of words. The words are the weak link in the discussion. But as we use them to inflame each others intellects (and righteously so) we must descend to common ground. But this does not mean we cannot effort to relate our sensations and sensibilities with original combinations of our thought utterances. "Clarity" is the enemy of individual intellectual advancement; so as we pursue (but hopefully do not slow ourselves enough to catch) notions of the nature of "beauty" we relate to each other in experiential conversation (as opposed to read and researched, Wikipedial variations). No links necessary - as the term "golden ratio" could easily be more serviceable to one who has never heard the term before. As language breaks-down into formalities the baggage if letters and words fall away and lonely notions swell in the heads of participants. Then as we struggle to add to the mixture of an exchange (not a solution) there is potential for gleaned significance; not "understanding", though. Obviously, there is no universiality in regards to the experiencing of beauty or anything else that involves an aesthetic assessment. Indeed a collective UNconsciousness meddles within an individuals greater efforts - thwarting and derailing. And its opposite, the collective CONSCIOUSNESS.....well, what a nasty thing to accuse of a consciousness. Yes, there are better words than beauty available to fuel THIS most vital of arguments. "Glorious" is not any good either. Perhaps "splendor"....?

Of course, one of the wonderful aspects of philosophy is that no method of inquiry can be excluded a priori. Anti-philosophies are still considered philosophy.

Consequently Apeman's assumption that clarity "is the enemy of individual intellectual advancement" would be considered one kind of philosophical approach. Yet, I do not think that Apeman's claim that "words are the weak link in the discussion" would follow from this assumption since discussion is impossible without them.

In any case,I don’t think the point need be argued here, for the Site Admin of the Philosophy Forums requests of everyone in his “sticky” post "...we can all benefit by making our posts more clear and concise. {emphasis his} So let's all work harder on being more clear and concise."

I think the reason Scott states this is that discussion of the topic without clarity of language is likely to lead to misunderstanding.

Here, as I understand the purpose of the Forums, Wittgenstein's dictum that ...

Everything that can be thought at all can be thought clearly. Everything that can be said can be said clearly (Tractatus §4.116)

...fits well with Scott's request for clarity.

Indeed. I have always found that over-articulated description, lengthy confirmation, focused resolution and tedious extrapolation to yield only murk and mire. Ophelias clarity. Yikes.

So does it now fall upon us to define "clarity" (when we're finished with beauty)? Ideas expressed dynamically, with abandon and supported by the unleashing that is permitted by a confident and cavalier forth-putting (unafraid of being off-putting) are likely to resound more sturdily in the emptiness of the fortuitiously famished minds it addresses. Better to be able to express "tone" of of a thought than to dilute and dissect it by the abuse of those tired coherencies laid-out for us by (trustworthy?) predecessors.

It all causes me to wonder about the beauty that might get found in poetry (as opposed to that strained lazily out of dissertation, essay, debate, oration, conversation and blather). My favorite philosophers quite manipulate - no they HIJACK, their language. They model it like clay, carve it into shape, push, pull and wring-out a thought; it is quite the creative effort, absolutely unique, barely recognizable...NEW. Its the best thing such an exchange (involving language) can do for humanity (and the building of it has done far more for its proprietor). Such an expulsion is never deterred by any worrying over clarity. What one supposes has delighted them when Clarity gets the credit is actually just Beauty (you know, the product of an elevated aside, an immersion into BOTH the fantastic and the "real", that eventually finds itself before perceivers, other than the one who performed the said toil, who - having done the work of experiencing it - feel warmly improved).

And it is indeed quite the case that the prefix "anti" never sufficiently negates its host; in fact it becomes family - further planishing the possibilities into a merely attractive smoothness; only craft, not art.

Perhaps the discussion thread can be regained by considering the specific example of Apeman’s allusive use of his persuasive definition of beauty. Here, I suppose, Apeman views the value of the definition more in terms of its "tone" than in terms of its intension.

To refer to something as "beautiful" is merely a shallow compliment; and exhibiting of adoration, a lie fueled by ulterior motives.

For clarity, let's see what this implies. I naively observe (like Ophelia) that the rayonnant rose window in Notre-Dame is beautiful. By saying the window is beautiful, I am not shallowly complimenting the window, I am not exhibiting my adoration of it, and I make this judgment truthfully without lying. Questioning of motive is unwarranted.

If I were to take the above quotation as Apeman's definition of beauty, then "the beauty that might get found in poetry" that Apeman mentions above would be by his definition "merely a shallow compliment; and exhibiting of adoration, a lie fueled by ulterior motives." And apparently, in his words, after "experiencing it - feel warmly improved."

Hamlet: ...I did love you once.
Ophelia: Indeed, my, lord, you made me believe so.
Hamlet: You should not have believed me...I loved you not.
Ophelia: I was the more deceived.

Sleuthing for self-contradictions within a discussion is a wayward and dallying approach within the evaluating of the worth of commentary inside a discussion. This is because it is not only pertinent but VITAL for a participating individual to entertain, embrace (and reject) opposing possibilities within himself as an idea gets rotated for a fully-fleshed consideration.

One might refer to that church window as "beautiful" as easily and commonly as one might refer to and especially nice pastry or the well-done accomplishing of a plumbing task. There-in lies the shallowness (and the lie). If you REALLY are improved by the aesthetic force of the optico-experiential-physicalities of that window, and it turns-out that you wish to relate this to someone then you must do the real work of manifesting a chain of utterances that somehow ascribe to the singular uniqueness of the "thing" and the great degree to which you have been impressed; nothing less than painfully assembled wordsmithing will communicate the beauty you have felt.

It musnt be left to the participants in the exchange to assume you think the window better than the pastry...because there is too much room for (mis)interpretation. In matters of communicating beauty, ones "beholdership" is paramount. And just because that window was beautiful (to you) once, doesnt mean it will be so again; OR, it may become MORE beautiful - to the degree that your initial celebration of is downgraded, in comparing the two instances of experiencing, to a mere acknowledging.

Recall Ophelia's blank gaze, up through the water...murk and mire, or crystal clear...the same .

Hard-gained sensation, the warmth of improvement, laboriously interpreted non-culminations-accrued - those can exist, and those ARE beauty. Significant form are the nuts, bolys, blocks, voids and substances that folk, seeking the usual facility, refer to as "beauty". So it exists, and it doesnt. If we just call it beauty to each other we stand no chance of being nourished - but if we belabor it and bombard it (the experience) with those sad grunts, groans and scribbling (typed or scratched) then there is hope. Otherwise we are all just ongoing managers and manuals, getting by, one day at a time until we look through the sunk eyes of Ophelia.

Sleuthing for self-contradictions within a discussion is a wayward and dallying approach within the evaluating of the worth of commentary inside a discussion.

Emotively neutral language is useful for the purpose of communication; emotively laden language obscures reasoning.

So putting aside the negative slanting of the above quotation, I take the literal significance of the quotation to mean that the contradictory statements in your posts above (about beauty) have meaning and significance.

Without assuming the principle of noncontradiction, meaningful discussion becomes impossible since the truth of any statement whatsoever logically follows from a contradiction.

A well done plumbing task has a certain beauty of form but lacks inference or implication of happiness or sorrow, or other human conditions. The good pastry is similar although it probably has been been used poetically ("Stands the clock at half past three? And are there muffins still for tea?") That is an interesting challenge to overcome the conventionally banal connotations of plumbing. For instance I have seen the engineering works of Bazalgette to provide sewerage for London described as beautiful. I think this is due to the works' grand scale and elegance of form in Bazalgette's use of existing water system and building materials.Yes, I'd say that elegance of form can combine with clarity of meaning to make beauty.I'll work on that for a bit anyway.

I suggest that the physical properties of beauty are symmetry and complexity, and that beauty is also created by associations that connect with our emotions and what we desire, care about, or admire. Most beauty is made of both these physical and these subjective causes. The plumbing systems' being called beautiful, is primarily because they provoke admiration of the intelligence and work that made them, perhaps some because of the simple complexity and vastness of shape they present to the eye. People are more beautiful when their features are more symmetrical, but more so when their face shows feelings that appeal to us--if they appear kind, capable, pleasant, or intriguing.

Beauty indeed exists--the disagreement we find over what is beautiful is in part because the world is so complex that there are different aspects to almost anything you may look at, and different sides of things will be noticed by different people.

Well, symmetry and complexity are easily viewed as opposites. So can "beauty" be BOTH?

beauty is also created by associations that connect with our emotions and what we desire, care about, or admire

The usual human subjectivity.

primarily because they provoke admiration of the intelligence and work that made them,

"Intelligence" can prevail in an individual without any want for the (highest possible) intellectual engaging of aesthetic principle.

People are more beautiful when their features are more symmetrical

WRONG, first of all, feature are NEVER symmetrical...and the closer they might happen to be to symmetrical the more BLAND they will be. LESS attractive, if you must profile such by Darwinism.

Hey guys I am back and here to give you another philosophical morsel. In my humble opinion beauty does not exist. I say this for the simple fact that beauty is a perceptual matter and something that greatly varies from person to person. For beauty to truly exist should not there be something that is universally held as beautiful? What I am driving at here is that we have the term beautiful and we have gone so far as to define it be it on a technical merit or other and yet there is no universal law or symbol to represent the term. The thing about beauty is just as I said previously it resides in a plane of perception. Furthermore, this belief is held for any form of beauty outer or inner. Our moral compasses all point in different directions in regards to how we hold our fellow man and our eyes can see something as glorious while another set holds that same sight in disdain. With such sharp contrasts in what people view as beautiful and what beauty at the core really is can we even say that it has ever existed to begin with?

Beauty is surely existent, even if ones perception of it changes from person to person. Beauty is an idea and a universal endeavor for the human condition and world. Beauty is meaningfulness in the appearance of things (ie: shapes, colors, patterns, symmetries), so it is not for the shallow but for the artist. Further, since ideas exist in their own special place, and beauty is an idea- beauty surely exists.

All Ideas exist in some form
Beauty is an Idea
Therefore, since ideas exist, beauty does as well in some form

Of course, this can be debated since some believe ideas exist and others, not.

I was going to post an article about Beauty but, since I am a new user, I am not allowed.

In response to Apeman:
symmetricality and complexity are not opposites. Consider faces; they are symmetrical and complex, and check out this wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facial_symmetry Symmetry is part of beauty, but complexity is probably a greater part; a box is not really beautiful, since it's too simple.

In response to Apeman:
symmetricality and complexity are not opposites. Consider faces; they are symmetrical and complex, and check out this wikipedia article: Symmetry is part of beauty, but complexity is probably a greater part; a box is not really beautiful, since it's too simple.

We can also consider Mandalas and other ancient forms of beautiful art that were both symmetrical and complex, as well. And you are right; they are not opposites -- just two different words that describe beauty.