Lysippus

The definition of beauty I find must be defined by the person. You can not let predetermined definitions effect your thoughts, such as Vogue, or Fashion expects. It should be defined, I think, of what makes us happy or makes us smile. Nor should we be told that we should be. And I hope most people have realized this. I also think this is what adds stress to peoples life's, because they must jump out of bed, and looks as they are expected too in there job or social position. I must admit I am guilty of this. I wish I could catch myself more often.

Nowhere357

I agree with your posts also. But I note that ideas and concepts can be found beautiful, and I'm not sure they classify as objects. I guess they can be, depending on definitions.

I think an idea which solves difficult problems in a simple way is attractive - natural selection comes to mind.

Endymion

Beauty emanates from the microcosm of the self. The structures of design from which we draw an objective science are shared by all. These are the geometries and color of space, qualities of life. I very much agree that in our youth we took our general models for beauty. During those times I thought life in all its form was beautiful.

Strangely I'm not so sure what beauty is if it can be in anything that doesn't directly apply itself to my will.

The items on my table right now have beauty, the maroon paper back and the phone. They all attribute to some state of mind. The green phone reminds me of technological facade. I see my reflection in its glossy surface and take in the fading awe of its day dream, something from the 60's, a plastic novelty. Though it becomes not so attractive the more I see it.

I think objects in combination just strike accord with cherished geometries, presented novel ways.
I can't think of anything in itself that isn't beautiful, having soley to deal with form. Anything that normally makes a person squirm, like violence, is aesthetically determined by the relation of the act to the observer. You appeal to the innocence of the young when they are threatened with anhilation and ugliness prevades naturally.

The one thing I so insanely astounded by is the beauty of the lands in my dream. They carry about them a perverse fetish of longing. I'm always longing, even in my dreams to take in the land, somehow eat it or be gratified by it. I had several dogs eviscerated by flying machetes as a result of tornadoes, and though I felt sorrow and mourned the images I dreamt the feeling of the beauty of the scene overpowered it all. I long for the tornadoes and images of macheted dog parts. Its all very strange. Its beautiful but at the same time it contains all the feelings necessary for that beauty.

ComestibleVenom

The heights of madness, inanity and stupidity. These things are the opposite of beautiful but they are sublime.

The movie COBRA VERSUS NINJA? That is pure unadultarated non-beauty. This single movie constitutes an ontological class of it's own. No other object in the cosmos, known and unknown, equals the ridiculousness of it.

Pyrrho

I was using the word "object" in the loosest possible way. All I meant was, there must be something to be called "beautiful". I regard certain aspects of mathematics as beautiful, though they are not objects in the same way as a chair or a table are objects. An idea is an "object" in the sense that I have been using the term.

None of this is incompatible with materialism, as an idea may simply be processes of the brain, which is obviously a material object. But none of what I stated in this thread is dependent upon materialism.

Mexicola

Nice argument, but it doesn't work. For one, you've simply assumed that the object doesn't change. Fairly bad, but I think most reality-loving materialists will grant you that one. Even worse, however, you've not considered the possibility that the different people could each be picking out different objective characteristics of the objects in question. Sure, people differ in what they think beautiful, but this doesn't mean the beauty is 'all in their heads'. Consider how we attempt to get a hitherto unimpressed friend to 'see' how beautiful a picture is. We attempt to show them what it is about the picture we like, and they may then see what they were previously unaware of. Does this coming-to-be-aware consist in them having a certain reaction to the picture while 'it' stays the same? Or rather in their noticing some objective qualities of the picture?
It's very similar to the good old 'colours are secondary qualities and hence all in the head' argument. And we all know how many problems that has caused... (Look at the thread on consciousness and materialism for a good example) In this argument we again fail to consider that it might be different properties of objects which we notice rather than different responses to the same objects.
I'm tempted to start a 'McDowell, anyone?' thread...

Tristan Scott

Yes, but don't you think that we also can learn to find the beauty in things? The beauty in an object or even a person is always there, it just requires that we learn to see it?

Nowhere357

You seem to be saying that beauty may be a qualia like color - therefore having an objective basis. If so, how does the beauty found in ideas fit the scheme, given that ideas are entirely subjective?

Mexicola

Eeek!! The dreaded 'Q' word!! Hissssssssss!!! Sorry, I don't like 'qualia'; I think they're silly philosophers' inventions. But yes, I see your point - and yes that's what I was saying. There's lots of ways I could fit in 'ideas' into this. For example, do we 'experience' ideas? Presumably so, but then how? Presumably via our senses, though obviously at a rather higher cognitive level than primitive perceptual judgments concerning colour, for example they might involve more than one at a time (sounds, language, pictures, etc). If this is so, then I would question your claim that ideas are 'entirely subjective' - why? What is it about ideas that makes them 'subjective'? They seem to me to be structured very much by our objective experience; they're not just things we invent out of nothing at all - we use concepts, ideas from others, pictures, etc.
Of course, by 'objective basis' with regard to ideas I would have to include things like reading books, speaking to people, looking at things, studying them, etc. These are all perfectly objective activities however; I see no reason to relegate them to 'mere' subjectivity. Similarly with aesthetic judgments - these are not to be regarded as responses to 'basic' or 'primitive' properties of objects (ie some property we would expect to find scientifically) but rather some organisational feature of these properties. So our appreciation of the artistic beauty of a picture might not be a response to any single unified property of 'beauty' in it, but rather a complex property formed by a certain arrangement of its 'basic' physical properties.
If you would like to elaborate on what precisely it is about ideas which you think is subjective then perhaps I'll be able to give a less general response.

Dubin

[Edit]Blah, silly me. Posted too soon.

Isn't that the same thing? Person A receives objective data Z and responds by only paying attention to a certain set of properties X. Person B receives the same data Z but, by paying attention to a different set of properties Y, has responded differently.

Also, supposing that person A points out 'beautiful' properties X to person B: What if person B dislikes properties X anyway?