Adam HilstadMay 13, 2021 at 00:159400 views32 comments
It seems to me this is the case. It is ethically right to find and create beauty where appropriate, because it enriches the lives of everyone around us.
Reply to Adam Hilstad I've never taken this idea seriously before. I guess it depends on whether you think there are any responsibilities around aesthetics. I don't accept notions of beauty as being pivotal to this discussion, so that might be why I have never considered this.
Where appropriate? Where is it not appropriate to find beauty or make something beautiful?
But what is beauty? It is either in the eye (or ear) of the beholder (or listener), or a lot of ugliness is being (and has been for a long time) passed off in public for beauty. I refer to the various genres of abstract art and rap music. Art used to be not just the imitation of, but the idealization of, nature. Now it has become what any four year-old might smear on a canvass, or a grown man throw against a wall. We see the ridiculousness of this in occasional newspaper headlines: a kindergartener’s finger painting is passed off as a million-dollar Kandinsky; a heap of rusty iron is hauled off by a university cleaning crew, only to discover it was a specially contracted $500,000 art display.
I recently read in The Times about a NYC graffiti artist who had gained international renown. He was commissioned to paint a piece to be displayed in S. Korea. Along with the piece, as a part of it, were included the shoes he had worn while painting it, and the brushes and cans, still full of paint, he had used, all placed on the floor beneath the work. The commission was worth several hundreds of thousands of dollars...
...after it was set up, a Korean couple came along and, spying the cans and brushes beneath, thought it was an interactive piece of art, opened the cans, dipped the brushes, and added their own effects to the multi-thousand dollar commissioned piece of “art”...
...but surveillance cameras caught the couple. They were soon arrested and questioned by police, and told their innocent story. The artist was alerted...and what was his response? this former graffiti artist who got a name by defacing public walls?...he was offended! He was offended that someone would dare deface a true “work of art”.
That is my commentary on the connection between ethics and aesthetics...
...btw, some who saw the piece before and after it was “defaced”, thought that the couple’s additions to it improved it, and it turns out the artist had moved from NYC to Paris...I suspect he will gain more sympathy there than he would have in his home town.
Now it has become what any four year-old might smear on a canvass, or a grown man throw against a wall.
That has been a common criticism of 'contemporary' art for decades and it is easy to see why. A Rodin taken out of a gallery and placed in a city car park is still a Rodin. Carl Andre's Equivalent VIII taken from a museum and placed in a city car park is just a pile of bricks. The context plays a role.
Nevertheless for me art can express what it is to be human and that may not always be beautiful or easy. But I like my art to have vitality and sometimes be confronting. Perhaps it would be a mistake to make too many demands on what art 'should' be.
The question of what counts as art is not all that important. Anything put on display in a certain context can be called 'art'. The more salient question is deciding if it's any good.
[quote=Albert Camus]Beauty, no doubt, does not make revolutions. But a day will come when revolutions will have need of beauty.[/quote]
I don't conceive of "What is right?" as a "subset" of "What is art?" (or vice versa) ... but maybe those questions aren't the sole or principle concerns of ethics and aesthetics, respectively. For what it's worth, my take on them both is agency-based rather than normative or idealized.
Aesthetics concerns the study of imaginary altruism (i.e. attention to (e.g.) the nonself, the ambiguous, the protean, the abject, the more-than-human, the numinous) in order to cultivate habits of suspending ego for perceiving the unfamiliar other as other.
Ethics concerns the study of moral altruism (i.e. intention of nonreciprocal (e.g.) welcoming, caring, helping, descalating, nurturing, resisting) in order to cultivate habits of suspending ego for responding to the exigent other as other.
Described as such, they are mutually informing but independent practices of psychological epoché, or intermittenly suspending 'fear frustration dissatisfaction misery' (ego) ... In this way, aesthetics is an imaginative rehearsal of ethics and ethics an existential grounding for aesthetics.
From a certain angle that's downright untrue. Aesthetics, whatever else it might be, in some circles is understood as symmetry and if we map that onto ethics, we would need to be as bad as good. In other words, the good and the bad are two halves, both necessary, to form the whole that is life, reality, the universe.
From another angle that's absolutely true re: priportio divina. A case can be made that there's more evil than good in the world and morality is simply the expected response to it - an enterprise to achieve and maintain the symmetry between good and evil. The disfigurement of reality by the preponderance of evil begs for an equal and opposite good so that, once more, reality can not only bear to look itself in the mirror but actually feel pretty good about what she sees looking back at her. In short, morality is about making the good proportionate to the extant evil.
However, the primary objective of morality as is currently understood is not just to offer a commensurate response to evil but to eradicate all evil from the face of the earth. That would be unaesthetic for it breaks the symmetry between good and evil and, by the logic I offer vide supra, the bad would spontaneously step up to the plate as it were if only to restore the symmetry. YIN YANG!
The word ‘appropriate’ was added out of caution, as there do seem to be certain cases where finding beauty is seemingly inappropriate. For example, WWII death camps. It’s conceivable that you could argue that art about such a topic can still be beautiful, but perhaps the overall beauty of such art is contingent on local ugliness.
TheMadFool, I suspect that what you perceive as a balance between beauty and ugliness is in fact beauty winning out over ugliness (see my previous post for an example).
TheMadFool, I suspect that what you perceive as a balance between beauty and ugliness is in fact beauty winning out over ugliness (see my previous post for an example).
Indeed, it's quite accurate to describe reality as also including a duel between beauty and ugliness and that, it would seem, weakens and even perhaps destroys the view/belief that an overarching theme of beauty is the be all and the end all as regards what reality should be like or, more accurately, is how it's to be understood, appreciated, and managed.
However, when we bring the two sides - beauty & ugliness - together, another symmetry results, and once again, beauty. Yet, by my logic, this symmetry won't last, is not meant to, and a new asymmetry will spontaneously arise but then that would be another symmetry, and so on ad infinitum. My suspicions are thus confirmed - YIN YANG is not some kind of static equilibrium of opposing forces which if it were ugliness would be left without a pair; it's rather a dynamic struggle between them: one moment the yin has the upper hand, another moment the yang rules the roost. Thus, though the battle between ugliness (asymmetry) and beauty (symmetry) is a continuous affair with the motif being win some, lose some, there's, on the whole, some kind of a super-symmetry to it that we may regard as beauty.
It seems to me this is the case. It is ethically right to find and create beauty where appropriate, because it enriches the lives of everyone around us.
I don't see a necessary linkage between beauty and right. What is beautiful is not necessarily right for everyone and every case, and vice versa.
Reply to Corvus
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder—very good point. At the same time however, there is a certain convergence in many cases. This is why some artists become influential, and why cultural standards of beauty develop. This is not to say these norms are always right, however 1) convergence does point to some level of objectivity, and 2) insofar as it doesn’t, consensus is sometimes wrong and should be corrected, and this seems to point to at least some linkage between aesthetics and ethics.
Reply to TheMadFool
TheMadFool, I don’t see it as a cosmic duel between beauty and ugliness—it just pertains to art. And in art, beauty just properly wins—where it doesn’t, it’s bad (or misunderstood) art.
Also, a balance between good and evil should not be the goal—the goal is for good to handily win.
I certainly don’t believe that beauty is the be all end all of reality. It’s only that the manufacture and discovery of beauty are just one aspect of what’s right in life.
I don’t see it as a cosmic duel between beauty and ugliness—it just pertains to art.
But it is, no? Look around you, what do you see? Asymmetry and symmetry trying to get one up on each other, sometimes succeeding, other times failing, with success and failure equally distributed between the two. Name one thing and I can name the opposite, as you, yourself have - you brought up ugliness when I talked about beauty.
Also, a balance between good and evil should not be the goal—the goal is for good to handily win.
This, if symmetry is the underlying principle of reality, isn't possible and as I mentioned earlier, or if I didn't I'm doing it now, the seed of beauty is to be found in ugliness and the converse is true as well. Ergo, as good reaches its zenith, the potential for evil also peaks and no prizes will be awarded for guessing what happens next. Likewise, when evil is maximized, the probability of good is greatest and again, predictably, the system will tend towards symmetry - an equilibrium.
But it is, no? Look around you, what do you see? Asymmetry and symmetry trying to get one up on each other, sometimes succeeding, other times failing, with success and failure equally distributed between the two.
This is an interesting idea, but I think there are many other equally interesting ways of framing reality. The question is, which frame wins in the long run? There are many things in reality that are symmetrical, but I would argue asymmetry is actually more fundamental. Consider 1 = 1. This appears to be symmetrical, until you consider that you evaluate the expression in a certain order. This means that asymmetry always exists, in the form of temporality, at bottom.
If symmetry = beauty and reality is about symmetry, beauty is the last word on reality.
In my mind, symmetry and beauty are distinct, though related. And I do not think reality is about symmetry, for reasons I’ve previously covered. Interesting idea, though.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder—very good point. At the same time however, there is a certain convergence in many cases. This is why some artists become influential, and why cultural standards of beauty develop. This is not to say these norms are always right, however 1) convergence does point to some level of objectivity, and 2) insofar as it doesn’t, consensus is sometimes wrong and should be corrected, and this seems to point to at least some linkage between aesthetics and ethics.
yes, I also feel that Ethical issues are more complicated than Aesthetics. I even used to think that they are totally different kind in nature. There are some overlapping parts, but only minor.
Think of the Ethical issues emerging from Euthanasia. Killing a life is bad, under the eyes of ancient and universal moral axiom dominated the whole human history. But recently in some cases, they are now justifying killings under certain situations and call them "Mercy killing" = Euthanasia.
Morality involves far more situational circumstance aspects and reasoning for its judgements.
Aesthetics? Beauty and ugliness are cultural, personal judgements based on momentary feelings on objects. These are direct and simpler mental process largely unsupported by reasoning process than Ethical ones.
There are many things in reality that are symmetrical, but I would argue asymmetry is actually more fundamental.
You're correct of course but what is asymmetry without symmetry? This what I've been trying to convey - for every thing that is, there's something that is not.
There are two levels of symmetry/asymmetry as I attempted to outline in my first post in your thread.
1. Symmetry/asymmetry at, what can be best described as, a qualitative e.g. good vs evil, hot vs cold, light vs dark, etc.
2. Symmetry/asymmetry at a quantitative level e.g. hot vs cold but how hot, how cold? You get the picture.
Qualitative symmetry can't be broken i.e. there are no entities - physical or mental (have I left anything out?) - that don't have an anti-entity. That you mentioned ugliness in response to my claim that reality's all about beauty is a case in point. Nothing may exist sans its opposite.
Quantitative symmetry can be broken e.g. there can be more evil than good, there can be more heat energy in a thing than in another thing, light and dark make dusk/dawn and it's this "numerical" inequality that we perceive as ugliness (asymmetry) and what always happens is it tends towards an equilibrium, a state of balance between the two antipodal forces at play and that is again a symmetry. This is where proportio divina enters the picture.
Thus, you were right about ugliness being something we have to take into account and I did but it appears this ugliness can't disfigure qualitative symmetry for even if there's asymmetry we have to deal with, it pairs up neatly with symmetry to restore the symmetry as it were. It's like 9 + 0 = 9 where 9 is symmetry, 0 is asymmetry, the result 9 is again a symmetry. So what is ugliness then? Answer, quantitative asymmetry!
Reply to Corvus
But surely there is ethical value in finding beauty in people, and in producing things that people will find beautiful—is there not? I don’t mean to say that beauty is as logical as right and wrong may be—only that it is ultimately subservient to ethical concerns in this way.
They are all over this forum—I think there are a lot of people on here with interesting views about what reality fundamentally is about.
Name one that's better than yin-yang. Even science seems to be about symmetry, look at electricity (electrons vs positrons) and the particle zoo is, I believe populated by particles vs antiparticles. In math we have positive reals and negative reals.
Reply to TheMadFool
A thing and its opposite are not necessarily symmetrical. Symmetry is spatial—you may be talking about balance. And yes, balance is essential in ethics. But it’s not about balance between good and evil—I think that’s where you might be confused. Good is balance.
A thing and its opposite are not necessarily symmetrical.
There is reflection symmetry between a thing and its opposite. Suppose you reflect the point (+x, +y) across the y-axis. What happens? The new point, the image, is (-x, +4). Likewise, the reflection of good is not good aka bad. Symmetry!
But surely there is ethical value in finding beauty in people, and in producing things that people will find beautiful—is there not? I don’t mean to say that beauty is as logical as right and wrong may be—only that it is ultimately subservient to ethical concerns in this way.
A wise old man told me once that aging and maturity involved understanding that there is great beauty in ugliness. He went on to explain that what is readily understood as beauty is often juvenile and specious. I often ponder this.
A wise old man told me once that aging and maturity involved understanding that there is great beauty in ugliness. He went on to explain that what is readily understood as beauty is often juvenile and specious. I often ponder this.
Sounds like some ugly wise-ass mofo who's still pissin' vinegar 'cause he's gotten too damn old for those 'juvenile and specious beauties' of yesteryear ... I'm almost (not quite yet) there with him. :smirk:
It is a common misunderstanding of aesthetics that it’s all about the judgement of beauty or ugliness. But I can see how aesthetics understood this way is imagined to be a subset of ethics.
That’s not to say that they aren’t connected, mind you.
Aesthetics is inclusive of the sublime - the capacity we have to appreciate that which we fail to understand, which is ‘naturally’ distressing, confronting or threatening. Aesthetics is not just about creating beauty, but about what attracts our attention beyond logic and understanding, and beyond the ‘right’ or the Good.
I disagree that aesthetics is subservient to ethics, although as humans we do normalise the subservience of Beauty to the Good. This is artificial, and stems from assuming (preferring) an intentionality to all action/creation. Kant refers to a purposiveness without purpose - the quality of experience that attracts attention and effort beyond our current understanding. It is at this level that our faculty of imagination is crucial - and where the logic of language breaks down.
Much of today’s modern art challenges this artificiality. We judge ‘ugliness’ by our own limited capacity for imagination or understanding.
Aesthetics is inclusive of the sublime - the capacity we have to appreciate that which we fail to understand, which is ‘naturally’ distressing, confronting or threatening. Aesthetics is not just about creating beauty, but about what attracts our attention beyond logic and understanding, and beyond the ‘right’ or the Good.
... It is at this level that our faculty of imagination is crucial - and where the logic of language breaks down.
Much of today’s modern art challenges this artificiality. We judge ‘ugliness’ by our own limited capacity for imagination or understanding.
A thing and its opposite are not necessarily symmetrical. Symmetry is spatial—you may be talking about balance. And yes, balance is essential in ethics. But it’s not about balance between good and evil—I think that’s where you might be confused. Good is balance.
Symmetry is not exclusively spatial - although, again, this is a common misconception. It’s a structural quality of invariance that can also be temporal (in mathematics), and even potential (in physics). Symmetry refers to invariance in the relation between a system and its iterations.
Balance refers to an apparently stable relation between limited iterations of a system. It’s about focusing attention and effort to consolidate localised systems of low entropy.
The way I see it, the difference between symmetry and balance in aesthetics is between understanding and appearance. You can create the appearance of balance by limiting perception (by ignoring, isolating or excluding information), but you can only demonstrate symmetry by increasing awareness, connection and collaboration with reality - by interacting with knowledge and experience beyond appearances.
So your statement ‘good is balance’ is a limited perception of reality, an artificial normalisation that arbitrarily qualifies both sides of the equation. It is an example of limited imagination in relation to both understanding and judgement.
There’s nothing wrong with this iteration as such - it just has no claim to certainty or objectivity in relation to truth.
[i]Ethics - the study of principles for behaviour - is not about defining the ‘good’, but about the notion of value in relation to human behaviour, intentionality/desire and judgement.
Aesthetics - the study of principles for perception - is also not about defining ‘beauty’, but about the notion of value in relation to human perception, conceptual knowledge/experience and understanding.
Logic/Philosophy of Religion - the study of principles for belief - rounds out the three, and is not about defining ‘truth’, but about the notion of value in relation to human belief, faith/mathematics and imagination.[/i]
Ethics - the study of principles for behaviour - is not about defining the ‘good’, but about the notion of value in relation to human behaviour, intentionality/desire and judgement.
Aesthetics - the study of principles for perception - is also not about defining ‘beauty’, but about the notion of value in relation to human perception, conceptual knowledge/experience and understanding.
Logic/Philosophy of Religion - the study of principles for belief - rounds out the three, and is not about defining ‘truth’, but about the notion of value in relation to human belief, faith/mathematics and imagination.
Minor quibbles aside, very much works for me. :clap:
Comments (32)
They're inextricably linked, that's true.
Where appropriate? Where is it not appropriate to find beauty or make something beautiful?
But what is beauty? It is either in the eye (or ear) of the beholder (or listener), or a lot of ugliness is being (and has been for a long time) passed off in public for beauty. I refer to the various genres of abstract art and rap music. Art used to be not just the imitation of, but the idealization of, nature. Now it has become what any four year-old might smear on a canvass, or a grown man throw against a wall. We see the ridiculousness of this in occasional newspaper headlines: a kindergartener’s finger painting is passed off as a million-dollar Kandinsky; a heap of rusty iron is hauled off by a university cleaning crew, only to discover it was a specially contracted $500,000 art display.
I recently read in The Times about a NYC graffiti artist who had gained international renown. He was commissioned to paint a piece to be displayed in S. Korea. Along with the piece, as a part of it, were included the shoes he had worn while painting it, and the brushes and cans, still full of paint, he had used, all placed on the floor beneath the work. The commission was worth several hundreds of thousands of dollars...
...after it was set up, a Korean couple came along and, spying the cans and brushes beneath, thought it was an interactive piece of art, opened the cans, dipped the brushes, and added their own effects to the multi-thousand dollar commissioned piece of “art”...
...but surveillance cameras caught the couple. They were soon arrested and questioned by police, and told their innocent story. The artist was alerted...and what was his response? this former graffiti artist who got a name by defacing public walls?...he was offended! He was offended that someone would dare deface a true “work of art”.
That is my commentary on the connection between ethics and aesthetics...
...btw, some who saw the piece before and after it was “defaced”, thought that the couple’s additions to it improved it, and it turns out the artist had moved from NYC to Paris...I suspect he will gain more sympathy there than he would have in his home town.
That has been a common criticism of 'contemporary' art for decades and it is easy to see why. A Rodin taken out of a gallery and placed in a city car park is still a Rodin. Carl Andre's Equivalent VIII taken from a museum and placed in a city car park is just a pile of bricks. The context plays a role.
Nevertheless for me art can express what it is to be human and that may not always be beautiful or easy. But I like my art to have vitality and sometimes be confronting. Perhaps it would be a mistake to make too many demands on what art 'should' be.
The question of what counts as art is not all that important. Anything put on display in a certain context can be called 'art'. The more salient question is deciding if it's any good.
I don't conceive of "What is right?" as a "subset" of "What is art?" (or vice versa) ... but maybe those questions aren't the sole or principle concerns of ethics and aesthetics, respectively. For what it's worth, my take on them both is agency-based rather than normative or idealized.
Described as such, they are mutually informing but independent practices of psychological epoché, or intermittenly suspending 'fear frustration dissatisfaction misery' (ego) ... In this way, aesthetics is an imaginative rehearsal of ethics and ethics an existential grounding for aesthetics.
From another angle that's absolutely true re: priportio divina. A case can be made that there's more evil than good in the world and morality is simply the expected response to it - an enterprise to achieve and maintain the symmetry between good and evil. The disfigurement of reality by the preponderance of evil begs for an equal and opposite good so that, once more, reality can not only bear to look itself in the mirror but actually feel pretty good about what she sees looking back at her. In short, morality is about making the good proportionate to the extant evil.
However, the primary objective of morality as is currently understood is not just to offer a commensurate response to evil but to eradicate all evil from the face of the earth. That would be unaesthetic for it breaks the symmetry between good and evil and, by the logic I offer vide supra, the bad would spontaneously step up to the plate as it were if only to restore the symmetry. YIN YANG!
The word ‘appropriate’ was added out of caution, as there do seem to be certain cases where finding beauty is seemingly inappropriate. For example, WWII death camps. It’s conceivable that you could argue that art about such a topic can still be beautiful, but perhaps the overall beauty of such art is contingent on local ugliness.
TheMadFool, I suspect that what you perceive as a balance between beauty and ugliness is in fact beauty winning out over ugliness (see my previous post for an example).
(Which is ethically right.)
Indeed, it's quite accurate to describe reality as also including a duel between beauty and ugliness and that, it would seem, weakens and even perhaps destroys the view/belief that an overarching theme of beauty is the be all and the end all as regards what reality should be like or, more accurately, is how it's to be understood, appreciated, and managed.
However, when we bring the two sides - beauty & ugliness - together, another symmetry results, and once again, beauty. Yet, by my logic, this symmetry won't last, is not meant to, and a new asymmetry will spontaneously arise but then that would be another symmetry, and so on ad infinitum. My suspicions are thus confirmed - YIN YANG is not some kind of static equilibrium of opposing forces which if it were ugliness would be left without a pair; it's rather a dynamic struggle between them: one moment the yin has the upper hand, another moment the yang rules the roost. Thus, though the battle between ugliness (asymmetry) and beauty (symmetry) is a continuous affair with the motif being win some, lose some, there's, on the whole, some kind of a super-symmetry to it that we may regard as beauty.
I don't see a necessary linkage between beauty and right. What is beautiful is not necessarily right for everyone and every case, and vice versa.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder—very good point. At the same time however, there is a certain convergence in many cases. This is why some artists become influential, and why cultural standards of beauty develop. This is not to say these norms are always right, however 1) convergence does point to some level of objectivity, and 2) insofar as it doesn’t, consensus is sometimes wrong and should be corrected, and this seems to point to at least some linkage between aesthetics and ethics.
TheMadFool, I don’t see it as a cosmic duel between beauty and ugliness—it just pertains to art. And in art, beauty just properly wins—where it doesn’t, it’s bad (or misunderstood) art.
Also, a balance between good and evil should not be the goal—the goal is for good to handily win.
I certainly don’t believe that beauty is the be all end all of reality. It’s only that the manufacture and discovery of beauty are just one aspect of what’s right in life.
But it is, no? Look around you, what do you see? Asymmetry and symmetry trying to get one up on each other, sometimes succeeding, other times failing, with success and failure equally distributed between the two. Name one thing and I can name the opposite, as you, yourself have - you brought up ugliness when I talked about beauty.
Quoting Adam Hilstad
This, if symmetry is the underlying principle of reality, isn't possible and as I mentioned earlier, or if I didn't I'm doing it now, the seed of beauty is to be found in ugliness and the converse is true as well. Ergo, as good reaches its zenith, the potential for evil also peaks and no prizes will be awarded for guessing what happens next. Likewise, when evil is maximized, the probability of good is greatest and again, predictably, the system will tend towards symmetry - an equilibrium.
Quoting Adam Hilstad
If symmetry = beauty and reality is about symmetry, beauty is the last word on reality.
This is an interesting idea, but I think there are many other equally interesting ways of framing reality. The question is, which frame wins in the long run? There are many things in reality that are symmetrical, but I would argue asymmetry is actually more fundamental. Consider 1 = 1. This appears to be symmetrical, until you consider that you evaluate the expression in a certain order. This means that asymmetry always exists, in the form of temporality, at bottom.
In my mind, symmetry and beauty are distinct, though related. And I do not think reality is about symmetry, for reasons I’ve previously covered. Interesting idea, though.
yes, I also feel that Ethical issues are more complicated than Aesthetics. I even used to think that they are totally different kind in nature. There are some overlapping parts, but only minor.
Think of the Ethical issues emerging from Euthanasia. Killing a life is bad, under the eyes of ancient and universal moral axiom dominated the whole human history. But recently in some cases, they are now justifying killings under certain situations and call them "Mercy killing" = Euthanasia.
Morality involves far more situational circumstance aspects and reasoning for its judgements.
Aesthetics? Beauty and ugliness are cultural, personal judgements based on momentary feelings on objects. These are direct and simpler mental process largely unsupported by reasoning process than Ethical ones.
And they are...?
Quoting Adam Hilstad
You're correct of course but what is asymmetry without symmetry? This what I've been trying to convey - for every thing that is, there's something that is not.
There are two levels of symmetry/asymmetry as I attempted to outline in my first post in your thread.
1. Symmetry/asymmetry at, what can be best described as, a qualitative e.g. good vs evil, hot vs cold, light vs dark, etc.
2. Symmetry/asymmetry at a quantitative level e.g. hot vs cold but how hot, how cold? You get the picture.
Qualitative symmetry can't be broken i.e. there are no entities - physical or mental (have I left anything out?) - that don't have an anti-entity. That you mentioned ugliness in response to my claim that reality's all about beauty is a case in point. Nothing may exist sans its opposite.
Quantitative symmetry can be broken e.g. there can be more evil than good, there can be more heat energy in a thing than in another thing, light and dark make dusk/dawn and it's this "numerical" inequality that we perceive as ugliness (asymmetry) and what always happens is it tends towards an equilibrium, a state of balance between the two antipodal forces at play and that is again a symmetry. This is where proportio divina enters the picture.
Thus, you were right about ugliness being something we have to take into account and I did but it appears this ugliness can't disfigure qualitative symmetry for even if there's asymmetry we have to deal with, it pairs up neatly with symmetry to restore the symmetry as it were. It's like 9 + 0 = 9 where 9 is symmetry, 0 is asymmetry, the result 9 is again a symmetry. So what is ugliness then? Answer, quantitative asymmetry!
But surely there is ethical value in finding beauty in people, and in producing things that people will find beautiful—is there not? I don’t mean to say that beauty is as logical as right and wrong may be—only that it is ultimately subservient to ethical concerns in this way.
They are all over this forum—I think there are a lot of people on here with interesting views about what reality fundamentally is about.
This in itself is not symmetry, it’s the opposite.
Symmetry vs Asymmetry = Symmetry (a thing and its opposite)
Quoting Adam Hilstad
Name one that's better than yin-yang. Even science seems to be about symmetry, look at electricity (electrons vs positrons) and the particle zoo is, I believe populated by particles vs antiparticles. In math we have positive reals and negative reals.
A thing and its opposite are not necessarily symmetrical. Symmetry is spatial—you may be talking about balance. And yes, balance is essential in ethics. But it’s not about balance between good and evil—I think that’s where you might be confused. Good is balance.
It would be nice to believe it to be the case. But I don't see why this should be so.
One can find beauty even in horrible things, so that alone causes one to question the plausibility of aesthetics being a part of ethics.
There is reflection symmetry between a thing and its opposite. Suppose you reflect the point (+x, +y) across the y-axis. What happens? The new point, the image, is (-x, +4). Likewise, the reflection of good is not good aka bad. Symmetry!
A wise old man told me once that aging and maturity involved understanding that there is great beauty in ugliness. He went on to explain that what is readily understood as beauty is often juvenile and specious. I often ponder this.
:up: These are the kinds of statements that I find electrifying!
Quoting Tom Storm
Sounds like some ugly wise-ass mofo who's still pissin' vinegar 'cause he's gotten too damn old for those 'juvenile and specious beauties' of yesteryear ... I'm almost (not quite yet) there with him. :smirk:
That’s not to say that they aren’t connected, mind you.
Aesthetics is inclusive of the sublime - the capacity we have to appreciate that which we fail to understand, which is ‘naturally’ distressing, confronting or threatening. Aesthetics is not just about creating beauty, but about what attracts our attention beyond logic and understanding, and beyond the ‘right’ or the Good.
I disagree that aesthetics is subservient to ethics, although as humans we do normalise the subservience of Beauty to the Good. This is artificial, and stems from assuming (preferring) an intentionality to all action/creation. Kant refers to a purposiveness without purpose - the quality of experience that attracts attention and effort beyond our current understanding. It is at this level that our faculty of imagination is crucial - and where the logic of language breaks down.
Much of today’s modern art challenges this artificiality. We judge ‘ugliness’ by our own limited capacity for imagination or understanding.
:100: :clap: I appreciate your succinct clarity.
Agree, I think that's the essence of the old fellow's message.
Of course we seem to judge all things by our limited capacity for imagination and understanding.
Symmetry is not exclusively spatial - although, again, this is a common misconception. It’s a structural quality of invariance that can also be temporal (in mathematics), and even potential (in physics). Symmetry refers to invariance in the relation between a system and its iterations.
Balance refers to an apparently stable relation between limited iterations of a system. It’s about focusing attention and effort to consolidate localised systems of low entropy.
The way I see it, the difference between symmetry and balance in aesthetics is between understanding and appearance. You can create the appearance of balance by limiting perception (by ignoring, isolating or excluding information), but you can only demonstrate symmetry by increasing awareness, connection and collaboration with reality - by interacting with knowledge and experience beyond appearances.
So your statement ‘good is balance’ is a limited perception of reality, an artificial normalisation that arbitrarily qualifies both sides of the equation. It is an example of limited imagination in relation to both understanding and judgement.
There’s nothing wrong with this iteration as such - it just has no claim to certainty or objectivity in relation to truth.
[i]Ethics - the study of principles for behaviour - is not about defining the ‘good’, but about the notion of value in relation to human behaviour, intentionality/desire and judgement.
Aesthetics - the study of principles for perception - is also not about defining ‘beauty’, but about the notion of value in relation to human perception, conceptual knowledge/experience and understanding.
Logic/Philosophy of Religion - the study of principles for belief - rounds out the three, and is not about defining ‘truth’, but about the notion of value in relation to human belief, faith/mathematics and imagination.[/i]
Minor quibbles aside, very much works for me. :clap: