AdamWho

Nowhere357

I find order and symmetry to be attractive. This extends from mathematical ideas to Jackson Pollock's paintings to natural landscapes. However, the emotional component isn't there. I have facination, interest, curiosity and a touch of vertigo when I am in a park like Yosemite but beauty bothers me.

My underlying assumption with all this is that I am an in-the-head-type person and think too much about these things. Maybe it has something to do with being male. I don't assume that I lack capactiy for emotion like some have suggested.

Oddly enough, the thing which moves me is strong emotion in other people.

Theli

Wouldn't that be great, if we could just chose what to find beautiful and change ourselfs at will?

Pyrrho

No, I am not saying that you should always be like others (I suggested being like your girlfriend in one way in this one instance and in similar situations, not in other respects or in dissimilar situations), nor am I suggesting that you never ask the questions you ask. What I am suggesting is that you do so at appropriate times, such that you do not spoil your enjoyment of life. The questions you ask can be asked any day while anywhere, but the beauties of Yosemite can be seen only while there.



This is precisely why I suggested that you be more like your girlfriend. She was able to appreciate the beauty of Yosemite, but it seems to have been wasted on you. She, evidently, was able to derive a pleasure that you seem to have missed. Now, who do you think is better off?

Pyrrho

Although we cannot simply choose when we will appreciate beauty, we can very significantly affect such matters. If, for example, I tried to constantly think about dead puppies in gruesome detail while at Yosemite, I would not be enjoying the experience as much as if I 'lived in the moment' while there. One can try to see the beauty in something, and one can try to avoid seeing the beauty in something. Although one may not always be successful in one's efforts, one's efforts can significantly affect the way one experiences such things.

Theli

Ofcourse you can give of the appearence of liking something and perhaps even fooling yourself that you do. You can be perceptive, and concentrate on something, but when it comes to forming an emotional response to it, I don't think it comes down to choice.
But if he continuously question the gravity of what he observes and why he should like it, then ofcourse that could work as a mental block.

Pyrrho

I have not been discussing pretending to like something, which is an entirely different matter. I am not suggesting that anyone pretend to find beauty in nature.



I agree that it is not simply a choice, and have said so already. What I am saying is that one can often have some influence on whether or not one enjoys something, or finds beauty in it. Sometimes, people initially have a bad impression of something, such as a painting, but after hearing someone else discuss it, they sometimes change their minds about whether or not it 'contains' any beauty. One can, however, decide beforehand not to listen to what others have to say about the painting, and then one is not likely to change one's mind about it. So one's choices are very relevant to whether one sees beauty or not, even though one does not simply choose whether or not one sees beauty.



Yes.

crocodile deathroll

This is Ugly

AdamWho

Pyrrho

I wasn't comming from a happiness point of view, rather I was applying Plato's suggestion that "an unexamined life is not worth living".

It seems to be at people are often on autopilot when it comes to beauty and I a just questioning.

You can say that beauty is subjective but then why do people agree so often about what is beautiful. Is there underlying aestetic properties that are objective? Maybe some people just believe that something is beautiful or even lie? (A convienient lie is easier than explaining why your a wierdo and don't think Yosemite is beautiful just like everyone else).

Pyrrho

As I already stated:

Saying that one should sometimes just enjoy one's surroundings is very different from saying that one should never ask questions. I never suggested that you not ask the questions that you are now asking. All I have suggested is that there is a time and a place for such things, and other times when it would not be best. For another example, think about having sex. While having sex, thinking about philosophical questions would be out of place. Of course, before one has sex, one should ask many questions, such as: "Do I really want to have sex with this person, at this time, in this manner, or would it be better to do so with someone else, at another time, or in some other manner?" But during the sexual activity, it is different, and one should already have answered the relevant questions beforehand. During sex, one should 'live in the moment', and help the other person(s) do likewise.


I already answered that question in my first post above:

People are generally psychologically similar to each other, probably due to similarities in their brains. The fact that people tend to agree about such things should be no more surprising than that they tend to have similar tastes in food (how many like to eat their own excrement?). Not only are brain structures similar, but also people tend to have relatively similar environments while growing up (that is, the similarities tend to be greater than the dissimilarities).


Perhaps it will be better to take a different approach. What do you think it is to be beautiful? Why isn't Yosemite beautiful, according to you?


Here are standard definitions of "beauty":

beau·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (byt)
n. pl. beau·ties
1. The quality that gives pleasure to the mind or senses and is associated with such properties as harmony of form or color, excellence of artistry, truthfulness, and originality.
2. One that is beautiful, especially a beautiful woman.
3. A quality or feature that is most effective, gratifying, or telling: The beauty of the venture is that we stand to lose nothing.
4. An outstanding or conspicuous example: “Hammett's gun went off. The shot was a beauty, just slightly behind the eyes” (Lillian Hellman).


The first definition fits perfectly with what I have in mind. The essence of beauty (I will speak in terms that are familiar to those who read Plato) is the reaction in the perceiver, not something in the object that is perceived. Of course, there must be an object, but the essential similarity between different beautiful things is a similar reaction in perceivers, not in the objects themselves.

Now, as you evidently disagree with the ordinary English usage of the term "beauty", it would be useful for you to explain what you mean by that term.

AdamWho

Pyrrho

I am sorry that I haven't been reading your arguments more thoughly and I am sorry that I used hyperbolic and sarcastic language.

I agree with everything you have said in the previous post.

Examining my motives, concerning the concept beauty, it seems that I am being overly contrarian.

I am resisting calling anything beautiful if the only reason it is beautiful is because it was defined to be. I am sure that lots of art and even some natural setting fall into this category (that is defined to be beautiful).

Without an emotional responce to an object [that is beautiful] I have difficulty making the distinction between what is actually beautiful and what is defined as beautiful.