What is the origin of beauty? Why is it that things are sometimes beautiful?
It might be that beauty doesn't have a general origin. That is to say that things are beautiful for reasons that are numerous as the things are numerous. I believe however, that beauty does have a general origin or at least a few common factors. I am willing to engage in a discussion regarding two questions:
Does beauty have a general origin? If so, then what is it?
Does beauty have a general origin? If so, then what is it?
Comments (67)
The quality of things that one wants. It is the same by beauty.
I have found a common factor to the phenomenon of beauty: The extent by which the object seems to be designed thoughtfully. The more an object gives this impression the more it will be beautiful.
This is of course, not scientific, but many examples confirm this theory.
Again, the more there is an impression that there is a "thought behind" the object, the more the object will be beautiful.
A chaotic art is not a disproof to this theory since its chaotic effect is intentional.
(I am afraid that we will continue only later since I have to go now.)
Beauty can be both objective and subjective. Objectivity and subjectivity do not necessarily negate each other. Suppose we defined beauty as the aspect of attraction in something. Isn't that as objective as it is subjective?
Beauty is a relationship - both objective and subjective. Because everything in LIFE is dependent upon each other, therefore, everything in LIFE has the capacity to attract another and has beauty as an inherent quality. However, there is also the beauty that is a real-time relationship between aspects that are in a particular phase of activity/interrelation - this is relative and subjective.
For example: Suppose you live somewhere in the Alps and outside your house is a most captivating scenery. However, due to the demands of your employment there is never time to enjoy that beauty. Now, also, suppose your neighbour is a work/stay-at-home individual who wakes up every morning and meditates to the beautiful scenery. Though such is the predominant state of their relation to the Alps' beauty, it does not take away from it. At any time, should they wish and for whatever reasons, any of them could ignore that beauty as much as they could appreciate it. That is what free-will is about - CHOICE. To me, ugly just means a lack of appreciation!
You fail to understand how both absoluteness and relativity, or objectivity and subjectivity, interrelate with each other. An inherent quality is also a relationship. To give an example closer to home:
Dna is an inherent quality in our genetic make-up. However, it is also a relationship in the sense that multifarious dominant and recessive factors combine to give the specific outcome that we are. It expresses both the overall person as well as the multiple channels of activity.
Allow me to explain in principles:
The truth, though singular and unyielding, cannot be expressed only in unity. If that were the case, then there would be no multiplicity. The ultimate is also the fundamental; the greatest is the simplest. That which is absolute is also the most relative. Hence LIFE is not just the whole but the individual as well.
Beauty is an aspect of the absolute, but only with respect to its relative aspects. If beauty was the quality of attraction in the absolute only, what would it be attracting? There would be nothing beyond itself to attract, else, it would not be absolute. However, because it operates in the whole through the many, it is both a principle and a relationship. It defines both identity and activity.
Another analogy would be a comparison with sense perception. Not only are we aware of our whole body as one, but also of each appendage independently though not detached. We can move one arm or leg while the other remains dormant even though sensation is continuously active in both.
The fundamental principle of beauty is the same - it is present within all life, though, by its activity, particular areas can be exemplified over others depending on choice.
As an identity, we can speak of that or that being the beauty of something. As a relationship, we can also speak of beauty as being in our perception, that is, in our minds, thoughts, emotions, feelings, sentiments, etc. Unfortunately, our language, as yet, does not filter perspective and cannot differentiate between subjectivity and objectivity without giving a lengthy and often tiresome discussion.
[When science discovered the atom, it proclaimed it to be the fundamental of life. Years later, simpler configurations have been discovered, but because the language is still the same, we find that we keep shifting from one ultimate to another. Scientists want to claim that what they have discovered is the furthest in human knowledge, though, over the years, philosophy has proved that literal fact and practical fact are not the same. Science works in literal activity while philosophy works in practical activity. Hence, philosophy, however primitive it may be, realized that the world was a globe thousands of years before science saw that it was.]
Instead of reducing things to fit your perspective, try expanding your perspective to include things. I believe it is how to increase our knowledge base.
The beauty of common language is, even though it does not express common thought, it does, however, express common experience. It is a fact of common human experience that beauty is a thing (identity). Hence we say, "that is beauty," or "that is not beauty,".
We also say, "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder." This expresses another fact of human experience, which is that, beauty is a relationship.
The principles I have deduced may not be agreeable but how can we doubt experience? Unless, perhaps, my understanding of it is mistaken... ?
...if a relationship is beautiful? :razz:
Order, disorder, order, disorder.....
It goes this way.
For example I have a tree farm. If I look at the distance i see mess, chaos, but when i come closer, i see this beautiful trees, each one. and so on.