Anything is possible but your posting is far from Universal. Many would find Angelina Jolie "beautiful" in her role as Maleficent.arjand wrote: ↑December 31st, 2020, 8:09 amIt depends on what the nature of Beauty entails. As it appears to me, the universal nature of Beauty is derived from the perception of success (value) relative to the purpose of life, the finality of the discovery of "good".
When one views a cute puppy dog, the aspect that may be perceived as Beauty would not be the cuteness property of the dog but it's finality on behalf of what can be considered "good", in which cuteness could be a major aspect.
The finality of the dog relative to what is "good" cannot be defined because "good" cannot be defined. One can merely feel it (pleasure or delight) while one knows that success (value) relative to the serving of the purpose of life is universal (objective).
The reason that "good" cannot be defined is the simple logical truth that something cannot be the origin of itself which implies that "good" cannot be valued and cannot be proven to exist using empirical science.
The realness of emotions such as pain proves that "good" is real.
The reason that Beauty is perceived as objective and universal, is that it is based on value relative to the purpose of life which origin is undefinable but common sense.
The purpose of life is "good". If the purpose of life were to be other than "good", it would imply that it can be valued by which the concept 'purpose' would lose its meaning.
Valuing must precede the senses and thus valuing must precede the human, animal and plant alike. The reason that valuing must precede the senses is that valuing requires a distinguish ability which it appropriates from what can be indicated as "good". Since "good" cannot be valued itself due to the simple logical truth that something cannot be the origin of itself, valuing cannot originate in the individual.
A purpose of life is essential for value to be possible because for value to be possible, it is required that "good" existed beforehand.
Value follows from the discovery of "good" and thus the valuer (the human, animal or plant) can find purpose in the serving of life by discovering what is "good".
Based on this logic, Beauty would originate from the potential to perceive the intrinsic value in the world relative to what is "good".
What is "good" in a human? What is perceived as ugly by some, is perceived as great beauty by others. As an example, some find Stephen Hawking truly beautiful. This could be explained when one finds beauty in the success relative to the purpose of life, the value that has been created by the discovery of "good", in others.
It also explains why people can find Beauty in poetry, philosophy and other intellectual performances.
From the perspective of a professor, a philosophy study that breaks boundaries in insights and knowledge and is constructed in such a way that it delights professors, may be perceived as truly beautiful. For others, it could be something small, for example a subtle writing style that hints at a certain care that provides inspiration for eternity.
Conclusion: Beauty is not merely in the eye of the beholder. The Universal element is derived from the value relative to the purpose of life which origin is undefineable, but common sense.
- Posts: 4670
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
- Site Admin
- Posts: 499
- Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
Angelina Jolie is considered one of the most beautiful woman in the world. Her look is an artistic extension of her natural beauty. Perhaps when viewing the film and seeing her in an emotional context, the beauty of her specific look is intensified by the meaning (purpose) that would provide significance to her look.
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 3047
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
By that logic a apple can be a banana ... it is all merely subjective!
I think it’s fair to say that something ‘cute’ is not viewed with any hint of repulsion whereas something ugly possesses (by definition) an element of repulsiveness, ergo ‘cute’ cannot be ‘ugly’ and neither can an apple be a banana (even though we can agree that they are both fruits).
Muddled semantics merely makes something sound profound and/or intriguing, but once you use our rational nature you’ll find it’s a vacuous/lazy stance.
Note: I’m not saying words are rigid empirical devices ... but ‘empirical’ is a word fashioned to suit a certain agreed purpose in communication. In colloquial speech terms can be used more fluidly and creatively, but in philosophical discussions it pays to be more wary of the exactitude of the ‘tools’ we use to communicate complex thoughts and ideas (ie. select and use word concepts within the limits of common technical usage rather than deflect any question by questioning the specific meaning of well worn terms like ‘cute’ or ‘ugly’.