Would nature favour beauty? If so, can we define it?

What is art? What is beauty?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Would nature favour beauty? If so, can we define it?

Post by Belinda »

Age wrote:
What is 'Nature', itself, EXACTLY? Or, what does the word 'Nature' mean or refer to, to you, EXACTLY?
Everything that exists, including you, me, and all others, are parts of nature. Nature is also how nature works so all these individuals are produced.
To me, 'beauty' is just the opposite of 'ugly', and whatever one SEES as being 'beautiful' or 'ugly' is just due to their past experiences. To me, there REALLY is NOTHING complex NOR hard here AT ALL.
It's undeniable that each person learns to call phenomena "beautiful" or "ugly". Is beauty also a value we can and perhaps should aim for?
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8536
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Would nature favour beauty? If so, can we define it?

Post by Sculptor »

Belinda is right to say that everything; ugly and beautiful are parts of nature.
An alligator or crocodile may not be beautiful to some, but beautiful to others.
A Down's synrome baby might not be beautiful to many, but is to those that know.
So what can we say about nature?
To recognise beauty or ugliness requires a value judgement.
It seem incoherent that nature is such a thing to be able to make such a judgement but leaves that to those parts of itself that can.
In other words; humans decide what is beautiful and as far as we can tell, we are the only species that makes such judgements.

Humans seem to favour beauty in choice of mates where they can; whatever they think beauty might be.
The mating rituals of mammals tend to select from various criteria that one MIGHT decide to call beauty, some can be selectively ridiculous. The massive fan tail of a peacock, the absurd constructions of the bower bird; ridiculous beaks; otherwise useless antlers; and the bizare long neck of the gifaffe are all directly related to the mationg rituals which by eye or by conflict are selected for succeeding generations. All these tendancies combined might be the original of beauty in the minds of humans.
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Would nature favour beauty? If so, can we define it?

Post by Age »

Belinda wrote: Sat Feb 12, 2022 12:22 pm Age wrote:
What is 'Nature', itself, EXACTLY? Or, what does the word 'Nature' mean or refer to, to you, EXACTLY?
Everything that exists, including you, me, and all others, are parts of nature. Nature is also how nature works so all these individuals are produced.
I agree that EVERY perceived 'thing' is just a PART OF 'Nature', Itself. And, there is absolutely NOTHING that is APART OF 'Nature', Itself.

Now, to me, there is NOTHING fixed or unchangeable (except maybe BELIEFS, while they exist, and the Fact that the Universe, Itself, is in CONSTANT-CHANGE), and that the word 'Nature' just referring to EVERY 'thing' just means that because ALL those 'things' are CONSTANTLY CHANGING, then this is just how ALL 'things' naturally evolve, which is just Nature, AT WORK.

So, to me, Nature, Itself, is just PURE SIMPLISTIC, as Nature is just the evolutionary CHANGE of EVERY 'thing', NATURALLY.

For example, if a species evolved into existence, as ALL 'naturally do', and there was one having gained the ability NATURALLY to be able to create and do MANY, seemingly unbelievable things, BUT this species was STUPID ENOUGH that in order to 'satisfy' its own GREEDY and SELFISH ways that it ACTUALLY started POLLUTING the VERY air and water that 'it' NEEDED for its continual survival, then, NATURALLY, Nature, Itself, would just take care of this STUPID species, by their OWN very ways of doing things, they would become EXTINCT.

There are two "opposing" 'things' in the Universe, but Nature is ALWAYS taking 'care of Itself'will just get RID OF 'that', which does NOT 'fit in', with Itself.

Nature is ALWAYS 'sitting in' EQUILIBRIUM and ANY thing going 'off track' or 'out of balance' will just be REMOVED, AGAIN Naturally. This is just SIMPLICITY, at work, and PURELY VERY SIMPLE and EASY to SEE and UNDERSTAND, as well.

And, it is this Natural SIMPLICITY that I find Truly BEAUTIFUL, and which is what make Life, Itself, also BEAUTIFUL at 'its' FINEST.
Belinda wrote: Sat Feb 12, 2022 12:22 pm
To me, 'beauty' is just the opposite of 'ugly', and whatever one SEES as being 'beautiful' or 'ugly' is just due to their past experiences. To me, there REALLY is NOTHING complex NOR hard here AT ALL.
It's undeniable that each person learns to call phenomena "beautiful" or "ugly". Is beauty also a value we can and perhaps should aim for?
I do NOT see how ANY one could 'aim for beauty'. I do NOT even know what that term or phrase could even be referring to EXACTLY.

Maybe if you provided some examples of what you are talking about/referring to, exactly, then we could LOOK AT them and DISCUSS.

But, in the meantime, if someone FINDS some 'thing', which they call, "beautiful", or "ugly", then, to me, so be it.

To me, because of that one's past experiences, or upbringing, there is NO wonder AT ALL WHY they would call ANY 'thing' "beautiful", or "ugly".

By the way, I would say, Right, or Good, is some 'thing, we could 'aim for', and life, itself, would already be better if we were already 'valuing' Right, and Good, and were 'aiming for them', instead.

Furthermore, far more people WILL see the ACTUAL 'beauty' in Life, and far more of 'that beauty', when we are ALL leading to and aiming for a much BETTER life, for EVERY one.

Also, the True 'beauty' of Life becomes CRYSTAL CLEAR when one can SEE what 'Life' REALLY IS, and is REALLY FOR.
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Would nature favour beauty? If so, can we define it?

Post by Age »

Sculptor wrote: Sat Feb 12, 2022 1:48 pm Belinda is right to say that everything; ugly and beautiful are parts of nature.
An alligator or crocodile may not be beautiful to some, but beautiful to others.
A Down's synrome baby might not be beautiful to many, but is to those that know.
So what can we say about nature?
To recognise beauty or ugliness requires a value judgement.
It seem incoherent that nature is such a thing to be able to make such a judgement but leaves that to those parts of itself that can.
In other words; humans decide what is beautiful and as far as we can tell, we are the only species that makes such judgements.

Humans seem to favour beauty in choice of mates where they can; whatever they think beauty might be.
'Beauty' is just 'that' what one finds 'beautiful'.
Sculptor wrote: Sat Feb 12, 2022 1:48 pm The mating rituals of mammals tend to select from various criteria that one MIGHT decide to call beauty, some can be selectively ridiculous.
Just as one might find 'it' 'beautiful' another might find 'it' 'ugly', so to here can be seen here that what one might find 'it' 'ridiculous' another might find 'it' 'not ridiculous' at all.
Sculptor wrote: Sat Feb 12, 2022 1:48 pm The massive fan tail of a peacock, the absurd constructions of the bower bird; ridiculous beaks; otherwise useless antlers; and the bizare long neck of the gifaffe are all directly related to the mationg rituals which by eye or by conflict are selected for succeeding generations.
The words 'massive', 'absurd constructions', 'ridiculous', 'useless', and 'bizarre' are ALL just examples of just how CLOSED, NARROWED, SHALLOW, or SHORT sighted the views were of the adult human being, in the days when this was being written.

Also, are the, seemingly, 'long necks' of the giraffe directly related to mating rituals, or were those evolved 'longer than normal necks' for some thing else, but which just became a feature or a part of the mating ritual of the giraffe later on?

Life, and Nature, have absolutely NO interest, concern, NOR care for 'beauty', itself. BUT, some 'things' are created and have evolved the way they are to 'attract' the opposite gender of a species, in order to help in the continuation of that species. As it is, after all, WITHIN the dna or genetic make up of a species the 'desire' or 'want' to keep 'itself' surviving for as long as 'it' can.
Sculptor wrote: Sat Feb 12, 2022 1:48 pm All these tendancies combined might be the original of beauty in the minds of humans.
What, EXACTLY, are these 'mind' 'things' of 'you', humans?
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8536
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Would nature favour beauty? If so, can we define it?

Post by Sculptor »

Age wrote: Sun Feb 13, 2022 5:43 am
Sculptor wrote: Sat Feb 12, 2022 1:48 pm Belinda is right to say that everything; ugly and beautiful are parts of nature.
An alligator or crocodile may not be beautiful to some, but beautiful to others.
A Down's synrome baby might not be beautiful to many, but is to those that know.
So what can we say about nature?
To recognise beauty or ugliness requires a value judgement.
It seem incoherent that nature is such a thing to be able to make such a judgement but leaves that to those parts of itself that can.
In other words; humans decide what is beautiful and as far as we can tell, we are the only species that makes such judgements.

Humans seem to favour beauty in choice of mates where they can; whatever they think beauty might be.
'Beauty' is just 'that' what one finds 'beautiful'.
Sculptor wrote: Sat Feb 12, 2022 1:48 pm The mating rituals of mammals tend to select from various criteria that one MIGHT decide to call beauty, some can be selectively ridiculous.
Just as one might find 'it' 'beautiful' another might find 'it' 'ugly', so to here can be seen here that what one might find 'it' 'ridiculous' another might find 'it' 'not ridiculous' at all.
Sculptor wrote: Sat Feb 12, 2022 1:48 pm The massive fan tail of a peacock, the absurd constructions of the bower bird; ridiculous beaks; otherwise useless antlers; and the bizare long neck of the gifaffe are all directly related to the mationg rituals which by eye or by conflict are selected for succeeding generations.
The words 'massive', 'absurd constructions', 'ridiculous', 'useless', and 'bizarre' are ALL just examples of just how CLOSED, NARROWED, SHALLOW, or SHORT sighted the views were of the adult human being, in the days when this was being written.

Also, are the, seemingly, 'long necks' of the giraffe directly related to mating rituals, or were those evolved 'longer than normal necks' for some thing else, but which just became a feature or a part of the mating ritual of the giraffe later on?

Life, and Nature, have absolutely NO interest, concern, NOR care for 'beauty', itself. BUT, some 'things' are created and have evolved the way they are to 'attract' the opposite gender of a species, in order to help in the continuation of that species. As it is, after all, WITHIN the dna or genetic make up of a species the 'desire' or 'want' to keep 'itself' surviving for as long as 'it' can.
Sculptor wrote: Sat Feb 12, 2022 1:48 pm All these tendancies combined might be the original of beauty in the minds of humans.
What, EXACTLY, are these 'mind' 'things' of 'you', humans?

Until you learnto write properly I am not going to read or respond to your posts, especially when my comments were not directed at you in the first place.
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Would nature favour beauty? If so, can we define it?

Post by Age »

Sculptor wrote: Sun Feb 13, 2022 11:15 am
Age wrote: Sun Feb 13, 2022 5:43 am
Sculptor wrote: Sat Feb 12, 2022 1:48 pm Belinda is right to say that everything; ugly and beautiful are parts of nature.
An alligator or crocodile may not be beautiful to some, but beautiful to others.
A Down's synrome baby might not be beautiful to many, but is to those that know.
So what can we say about nature?
To recognise beauty or ugliness requires a value judgement.
It seem incoherent that nature is such a thing to be able to make such a judgement but leaves that to those parts of itself that can.
In other words; humans decide what is beautiful and as far as we can tell, we are the only species that makes such judgements.

Humans seem to favour beauty in choice of mates where they can; whatever they think beauty might be.
'Beauty' is just 'that' what one finds 'beautiful'.
Sculptor wrote: Sat Feb 12, 2022 1:48 pm The mating rituals of mammals tend to select from various criteria that one MIGHT decide to call beauty, some can be selectively ridiculous.
Just as one might find 'it' 'beautiful' another might find 'it' 'ugly', so to here can be seen here that what one might find 'it' 'ridiculous' another might find 'it' 'not ridiculous' at all.
Sculptor wrote: Sat Feb 12, 2022 1:48 pm The massive fan tail of a peacock, the absurd constructions of the bower bird; ridiculous beaks; otherwise useless antlers; and the bizare long neck of the gifaffe are all directly related to the mationg rituals which by eye or by conflict are selected for succeeding generations.
The words 'massive', 'absurd constructions', 'ridiculous', 'useless', and 'bizarre' are ALL just examples of just how CLOSED, NARROWED, SHALLOW, or SHORT sighted the views were of the adult human being, in the days when this was being written.

Also, are the, seemingly, 'long necks' of the giraffe directly related to mating rituals, or were those evolved 'longer than normal necks' for some thing else, but which just became a feature or a part of the mating ritual of the giraffe later on?

Life, and Nature, have absolutely NO interest, concern, NOR care for 'beauty', itself. BUT, some 'things' are created and have evolved the way they are to 'attract' the opposite gender of a species, in order to help in the continuation of that species. As it is, after all, WITHIN the dna or genetic make up of a species the 'desire' or 'want' to keep 'itself' surviving for as long as 'it' can.
Sculptor wrote: Sat Feb 12, 2022 1:48 pm All these tendancies combined might be the original of beauty in the minds of humans.
What, EXACTLY, are these 'mind' 'things' of 'you', humans?

Until you learnto write properly I am not going to read or respond to your posts, especially when my comments were not directed at you in the first place.
LOL So, you read my post, AND THEN respond to my post, to TELL me that you are NOT going to READ or RESPOND to my posts UNTIL I SUPPOSEDLY DO SOME 'THING'.

The, OBVIOUS, HYPOCRISY and CONTRADICTION is BLINDING.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Would nature favour beauty? If so, can we define it?

Post by Belinda »

Age wrote:
I do NOT see how ANY one could 'aim for beauty'. I do NOT even know what that term or phrase could even be referring to EXACTLY.
If you are making something, a car, a poem, a song, a garden, a new kitchen etc. you probably aim for it to be beautiful.

What is it, if anything, that all beautiful cars, songs, or kitchens have in common with each other? Is it that they are true to their intended function?

Most people think a tiger or a snowdrop is beautiful. Are they beautiful because they are true each to its own way to survive and prosper?
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8536
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Would nature favour beauty? If so, can we define it?

Post by Sculptor »

Age wrote: Sun Feb 13, 2022 12:11 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sun Feb 13, 2022 11:15 am
Age wrote: Sun Feb 13, 2022 5:43 am

'Beauty' is just 'that' what one finds 'beautiful'.


Just as one might find 'it' 'beautiful' another might find 'it' 'ugly', so to here can be seen here that what one might find 'it' 'ridiculous' another might find 'it' 'not ridiculous' at all.



The words 'massive', 'absurd constructions', 'ridiculous', 'useless', and 'bizarre' are ALL just examples of just how CLOSED, NARROWED, SHALLOW, or SHORT sighted the views were of the adult human being, in the days when this was being written.

Also, are the, seemingly, 'long necks' of the giraffe directly related to mating rituals, or were those evolved 'longer than normal necks' for some thing else, but which just became a feature or a part of the mating ritual of the giraffe later on?

Life, and Nature, have absolutely NO interest, concern, NOR care for 'beauty', itself. BUT, some 'things' are created and have evolved the way they are to 'attract' the opposite gender of a species, in order to help in the continuation of that species. As it is, after all, WITHIN the dna or genetic make up of a species the 'desire' or 'want' to keep 'itself' surviving for as long as 'it' can.


What, EXACTLY, are these 'mind' 'things' of 'you', humans?

Until you learnto write properly I am not going to read or respond to your posts, especially when my comments were not directed at you in the first place.
LOL So, you read my post, AND THEN respond to my post, to TELL me that you are NOT going to READ or RESPOND to my posts UNTIL I SUPPOSEDLY DO SOME 'THING'.

The, OBVIOUS, HYPOCRISY and CONTRADICTION is BLINDING.
Until you learn to write properly I am not going to read or respond to your posts, especially when my comments were not directed at you in the first place.
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Would nature favour beauty? If so, can we define it?

Post by Age »

Belinda wrote: Sun Feb 13, 2022 12:36 pm Age wrote:
I do NOT see how ANY one could 'aim for beauty'. I do NOT even know what that term or phrase could even be referring to EXACTLY.
If you are making something, a car, a poem, a song, a garden, a new kitchen etc. you probably aim for it to be beautiful.
That would all depend on the 'thing', the 'person', and the 'situation'.

And, again, what is 'beautiful' to 'one' is NOT necessarily 'beautiful' to "another". So, when you say, "aim for it to be beautiful", what is the 'beautiful' in relation to, EXACTLY?

If the 'beauty' is in relation to the 'one' who is doing the 'making', then if 'they' are aiming for the made 'thing' to be 'beautiful' or not is solely up to 'them'. So, only 'they' would know, and therefore only 'they' would be the best one to gain 'clarity' from.

Also, you wrote, "If you are making something, ..., you probably aim for it to be beautiful". Now, if the 'you' word in this sentence of yours is referring to 'me' directly, and I come to think of 'this', I do NOT recall EVER making ANY thing with the aim for it to be 'beautiful'.

Belinda wrote: Sun Feb 13, 2022 12:36 pm What is it, if anything, that all beautiful cars, songs, or kitchens have in common with each other? Is it that they are true to their intended function?
You LOST me at, "What is it, ...". What is the 'it' word here referring to exactly?

And, AGAIN, is there such a 'thing' as "beautiful cars", "beautiful songs", or "beautiful kitchens"? Or, is thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things' SOME 'cars', SOME 'songs', and SOME 'kitchens' might be 'beautiful' to SOME people?

If the truth be known I do NOT recall EVER saying a human being made 'thing' is 'beautiful'. However, I do SEE a LOT of 'beauty' in the 'things' that are NOT touched by 'you', human beings. But, in saying that, I ALSO SEE a GREAT DEAL of 'beauty' in 'you', human beings, who were OBVIOUSLY made by 'you', human beings.
Belinda wrote: Sun Feb 13, 2022 12:36 pm Most people think a tiger or a snowdrop is beautiful. Are they beautiful because they are true each to its own way to survive and prosper?
They are probably 'beautiful' to most people because of their markings, shapes, and/or colors. But to be absolutely sure of the reason WHY (if) 'most people' think a tiger or a snowdrop is 'beautiful', then you would have to ASK 'them' directly, as ONLY 'they' would KNOW, for sure.

As for, 'Are tigers and snowdrops beautiful because they are 'true' 'each to its own way to survive and prosper'?' Then, AGAIN, that all depends on the 'observer', itself. This is because; Absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer.

So, if some find 'beautiful' when things are true to their own way to survive and prosper, then the answer to your clarifying question here would be 'Yes', to those observers, but would be 'No' to other observers who do NOT find 'beautiful' when things are true to their own way to survive and prosper.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Would nature favour beauty? If so, can we define it?

Post by Belinda »

Age wrote: Mon Feb 14, 2022 1:20 am
Belinda wrote: Sun Feb 13, 2022 12:36 pm Age wrote:
I do NOT see how ANY one could 'aim for beauty'. I do NOT even know what that term or phrase could even be referring to EXACTLY.
If you are making something, a car, a poem, a song, a garden, a new kitchen etc. you probably aim for it to be beautiful.
That would all depend on the 'thing', the 'person', and the 'situation'.

And, again, what is 'beautiful' to 'one' is NOT necessarily 'beautiful' to "another". So, when you say, "aim for it to be beautiful", what is the 'beautiful' in relation to, EXACTLY?

If the 'beauty' is in relation to the 'one' who is doing the 'making', then if 'they' are aiming for the made 'thing' to be 'beautiful' or not is solely up to 'them'. So, only 'they' would know, and therefore only 'they' would be the best one to gain 'clarity' from.

Also, you wrote, "If you are making something, ..., you probably aim for it to be beautiful". Now, if the 'you' word in this sentence of yours is referring to 'me' directly, and I come to think of 'this', I do NOT recall EVER making ANY thing with the aim for it to be 'beautiful'.

Belinda wrote: Sun Feb 13, 2022 12:36 pm What is it, if anything, that all beautiful cars, songs, or kitchens have in common with each other? Is it that they are true to their intended function?
You LOST me at, "What is it, ...". What is the 'it' word here referring to exactly?

And, AGAIN, is there such a 'thing' as "beautiful cars", "beautiful songs", or "beautiful kitchens"? Or, is thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things' SOME 'cars', SOME 'songs', and SOME 'kitchens' might be 'beautiful' to SOME people?

If the truth be known I do NOT recall EVER saying a human being made 'thing' is 'beautiful'. However, I do SEE a LOT of 'beauty' in the 'things' that are NOT touched by 'you', human beings. But, in saying that, I ALSO SEE a GREAT DEAL of 'beauty' in 'you', human beings, who were OBVIOUSLY made by 'you', human beings.
Belinda wrote: Sun Feb 13, 2022 12:36 pm Most people think a tiger or a snowdrop is beautiful. Are they beautiful because they are true each to its own way to survive and prosper?
They are probably 'beautiful' to most people because of their markings, shapes, and/or colors. But to be absolutely sure of the reason WHY (if) 'most people' think a tiger or a snowdrop is 'beautiful', then you would have to ASK 'them' directly, as ONLY 'they' would KNOW, for sure.

As for, 'Are tigers and snowdrops beautiful because they are 'true' 'each to its own way to survive and prosper'?' Then, AGAIN, that all depends on the 'observer', itself. This is because; Absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer.

So, if some find 'beautiful' when things are true to their own way to survive and prosper, then the answer to your clarifying question here would be 'Yes', to those observers, but would be 'No' to other observers who do NOT find 'beautiful' when things are true to their own way to survive and prosper.
Did you never make anything while aiming for it to please your eye, ear, or smell. Sensually pleasing is a function of beauty. I bet you tidy up the place you live in partly because otherwise its appearance would displease you.

I am asking you, Age, directly, why you think a snowdrop is beautiful. If you say a snowdrop is beautiful because of its shape and markings(or any other reason of your choice) I'd ask you what is beautiful about that shape and these markings. If you want to be a philosopher you need to analyse every assertion and proposition. You happen to be the observer to whom I am posing the question.
Absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer.

I agree. However many people do agree about what is beautiful and what ugly. You happen to be the observer to whom I am posing the question " Do all beautiful things have something in common?" One possible way to answer the question is to pick something that interests you and discuss what makes it beautiful or ugly, true or false, bad or good.
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Would nature favour beauty? If so, can we define it?

Post by Age »

Belinda wrote: Mon Feb 14, 2022 12:03 pm
Age wrote: Mon Feb 14, 2022 1:20 am
Belinda wrote: Sun Feb 13, 2022 12:36 pm Age wrote:



If you are making something, a car, a poem, a song, a garden, a new kitchen etc. you probably aim for it to be beautiful.
That would all depend on the 'thing', the 'person', and the 'situation'.

And, again, what is 'beautiful' to 'one' is NOT necessarily 'beautiful' to "another". So, when you say, "aim for it to be beautiful", what is the 'beautiful' in relation to, EXACTLY?

If the 'beauty' is in relation to the 'one' who is doing the 'making', then if 'they' are aiming for the made 'thing' to be 'beautiful' or not is solely up to 'them'. So, only 'they' would know, and therefore only 'they' would be the best one to gain 'clarity' from.

Also, you wrote, "If you are making something, ..., you probably aim for it to be beautiful". Now, if the 'you' word in this sentence of yours is referring to 'me' directly, and I come to think of 'this', I do NOT recall EVER making ANY thing with the aim for it to be 'beautiful'.

Belinda wrote: Sun Feb 13, 2022 12:36 pm What is it, if anything, that all beautiful cars, songs, or kitchens have in common with each other? Is it that they are true to their intended function?
You LOST me at, "What is it, ...". What is the 'it' word here referring to exactly?

And, AGAIN, is there such a 'thing' as "beautiful cars", "beautiful songs", or "beautiful kitchens"? Or, is thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things' SOME 'cars', SOME 'songs', and SOME 'kitchens' might be 'beautiful' to SOME people?

If the truth be known I do NOT recall EVER saying a human being made 'thing' is 'beautiful'. However, I do SEE a LOT of 'beauty' in the 'things' that are NOT touched by 'you', human beings. But, in saying that, I ALSO SEE a GREAT DEAL of 'beauty' in 'you', human beings, who were OBVIOUSLY made by 'you', human beings.
Belinda wrote: Sun Feb 13, 2022 12:36 pm Most people think a tiger or a snowdrop is beautiful. Are they beautiful because they are true each to its own way to survive and prosper?
They are probably 'beautiful' to most people because of their markings, shapes, and/or colors. But to be absolutely sure of the reason WHY (if) 'most people' think a tiger or a snowdrop is 'beautiful', then you would have to ASK 'them' directly, as ONLY 'they' would KNOW, for sure.

As for, 'Are tigers and snowdrops beautiful because they are 'true' 'each to its own way to survive and prosper'?' Then, AGAIN, that all depends on the 'observer', itself. This is because; Absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer.

So, if some find 'beautiful' when things are true to their own way to survive and prosper, then the answer to your clarifying question here would be 'Yes', to those observers, but would be 'No' to other observers who do NOT find 'beautiful' when things are true to their own way to survive and prosper.
Did you never make anything while aiming for it to please your eye, ear, or smell.
Maybe, but I do not recall.

I, however, have made meals to 'please' the taste buds. But I would say I ('tried to', at least) make the food to be 'yummy' and not necessarily 'beautiful'.
Belinda wrote: Mon Feb 14, 2022 12:03 pm Sensually pleasing is a function of beauty.
Does 'beauty', itself, have 'functions'? Or, is 'beauty', itself, literally, just in the 'eye' of the beholder? In other words, is 'beauty' relative to the observer?

I bet you tidy up the place you live in partly because otherwise its appearance would displease you.[/quote]

1. NOT EVERY one does things for the EXACT SAME reasons you do.

2. I 'tidy up' when I think it is 'necessary' to do so, and not at all for 'beauty's' sake. But what you are saying still makes sense, to me.

3. Because some 'thing' might 'displease' me that does not necessarily have ANY thing at all to do with 'beauty', itself.

4. But, the more I think about this, from what you are saying, if there is a 'function' of 'beauty', itself, and that 'beauty' and 'function of beauty' lay within Nature, Itself, thus ingrained into the very Being of being a NATURAL 'thing', then the 'destruction' of the non human made 'things' is DISPLEASING, well to me anyway, and it would be BEST if they were left UNTOUCHED or CLEAN, and did NOT 'need' 'tidying up', in the first place.

By the way, the 'place' I live in is the Universe, Itself.

And, 'tidying up' the DISPLEASING MESS created over millennia by adult human beings is some 'thing' that does take some time.
Belinda wrote: Mon Feb 14, 2022 12:03 pm I am asking you, Age, directly, why you think a snowdrop is beautiful.
When did I EVER say, "a snowdrop is beautiful"?

This body has NEVER seen a snowdrop, directly, therefore I do NOT know IF a snowdrop is 'beautiful' or NOT to this body and these 'eyes'.
Belinda wrote: Mon Feb 14, 2022 12:03 pm If you say a snowdrop is beautiful because of its shape and markings(or any other reason of your choice) I'd ask you what is beautiful about that shape and these markings.
Well I NEVER said that, so I suggest asking those who have.

You wrote; "Most people think a tiger or a snowdrop is beautiful".

I just replied; 'They are probably 'beautiful' to most people because of their markings, shapes, and/or colors.'

'They', being; the tiger and/or snowdrop.

'probably', being; NOT SURE but MAYBE 'most likely'.

'to most people', referring to; your CLAIM that 'most people' think ...

'because', meaning; the reason for WHY 'most people think ....

'markings, shapes, and/or colors, referring to the ACTUAL 'thing', which could POSSIBLY and MAYBE 'most likely' IS the reason WHY, the alleged, 'most people' 'think' that 'tigers or snowdrops' are so-called 'beautiful'.

I replied with 'that' because you asked me; "Are they beautiful because they are true each to its own way to survive and prosper?"

And, I was just saying; IF it is True that 'most people' 'think' 'they are beautiful', then the reason WHY, to me, the 'tiger and/or snowdrop' are 'beautiful' to 'those people', and NOT necessarily to me, is BECAUSE of the markings, shapes, and/or the colors of those 'things', that is; the 'tiger' or 'snowdrop' and NOT because of their 'own way' 'to survive and prosper'.

But, the BEST WAY to find out FOR SURE what the REASON IS WHY 'those people' find 'those things' 'beautiful' is to ask 'those people', "themselves" and NOT ask 'me'.
Belinda wrote: Mon Feb 14, 2022 12:03 pm If you want to be a philosopher you need to analyse every assertion and proposition.
1. I do NOT 'want' to be a so-called 'philosopher'.

2. By asking the amount of CLARIFYING questions I have been, I am ACTUALLY 'analyzing' FAR MORE 'assertions' and 'propositions' made by 'you', people.

3. What will be FOUND is that I have ACTUALLY 'analyzed' FAR MORE than 'you', people, in the days when this was being written could have even IMAGINED.

4. Instead of ASSUMING what I am doing or NOT doing, I suggest READING and SEEING 'deeper' or 'more thoroughly' INTO the ACTUAL WORDS that I USE here.

5. What IS a 'philosopher', to you, EXACTLY?
Belinda wrote: Mon Feb 14, 2022 12:03 pm You happen to be the observer to whom I am posing the question.
You previously, in this thread, made the comment that you; "find my quizzical (to me 'analyzing') method quite useful as answering my questions makes you think." However, you also made the comment that; "in the interests of myself and others it would be better if now and again I asserted an idea." To which I POINTED OUT and SHOW just how MANY ideas I had ALREADY ACTUALLY 'asserted' in just one post of mine here.

Now, you are commenting about how I may NOT be 'analyzing' (or being 'quizzical' enough) here.
Belinda wrote: Mon Feb 14, 2022 12:03 pm
Absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer.

I agree. However many people do agree about what is beautiful and what ugly. You happen to be the observer to whom I am posing the question " Do all beautiful things have something in common?"
WHEN did you EVER pose 'this question' to me, PREVIOUSLY?

And, when you say, "... all beautiful things", are you referring to "ALL the 'beautiful things', TO ME, or to just ALL of the 'beautiful things' IN EXISTENCE, TO EVERY one?

But, the answer to YOUR question, from my perspective is; Yes, all beautiful things have something in common, and what 'that' IS, EXACTLY, is that they are ALL 'beautiful'.

BUT, who or what they are 'beautiful' to, EXACTLY, is ANOTHER question.
Belinda wrote: Mon Feb 14, 2022 12:03 pm One possible way to answer the question is to pick something that interests you and discuss what makes it beautiful or ugly, true or false, bad or good.
What 'interests' me is that Nature, Itself, is intrinsically BEAUTIFUL, and, that what adult humans beings do can be the MOST UGLIEST 'things' POSSIBLE.

What 'makes' Nature 'beautiful', to me, is the way absolutely EVERY 'thing' SEEN and KNOWN was CREATED by Nature, Itself, through a Truly NATURAL process, which is made up of the UPMOST SIMPLICITY.

What 'makes' 'that' what 'you', adult human beings, do, to me, so COMPLETELY and UTTERLY UGLY is partly because of the ABSOLUTE IGNORANCE behind 'that' and partly because of the ACTUAL DISHONESTY behind 'it' to KEEP on doing 'that' Wrong.

Now, what 'makes' truth AND falsehoods is just AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE. And,

what 'makes' bad AND good is just AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE in regards to what 'you' would want done to 'you' but ONLY IF 'you' were in 'their shoes', as some say.

By the way, these can NOT be REFUTED.
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Would nature favour beauty? If so, can we define it?

Post by popeye1945 »

One might think of the beautiful as the object species distance from non-existence, where structure and form create healthy/beautiful function. This comes closer to ideal existence, even this ideal existence is subject to the coming to be, to process, which has its arising and its decline. We all know there is no such thing as perfect, but sometimes a fortunate composition is generated and one is in the experience of awe, yes, this is beautiful. When structure is not true to the species object, then neither is the form or the function, and one is looking at a monstrosity, and monstrosities are not long in existence. Nature is indifferent to the existence of the wretched, and selective of the beautiful the healthy specimen. We celebrate the healthy the beautiful, even when we cannot articulate it. It speaks to the order of our own being, and we yearn creatively to be creators of the beautiful. Age and sickness ravage the beautiful and brings it ever closer to non-existence.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Would nature favour beauty? If so, can we define it?

Post by Belinda »

popeye1945 wrote: Tue Feb 15, 2022 1:23 am One might think of the beautiful as the object species distance from non-existence, where structure and form create healthy/beautiful function. This comes closer to ideal existence, even this ideal existence is subject to the coming to be, to process, which has its arising and its decline. We all know there is no such thing as perfect, but sometimes a fortunate composition is generated and one is in the experience of awe, yes, this is beautiful. When structure is not true to the species object, then neither is the form or the function, and one is looking at a monstrosity, and monstrosities are not long in existence. Nature is indifferent to the existence of the wretched, and selective of the beautiful the healthy specimen. We celebrate the healthy the beautiful, even when we cannot articulate it. It speaks to the order of our own being, and we yearn creatively to be creators of the beautiful. Age and sickness ravage the beautiful and brings it ever closer to non-existence.
Yes. Keats wrote "Beauty is truth and truth beauty--- that is all you know on Earth and all you need to know." All beautiful things eventually die or otherwise vanish. But when the beautiful form has gone there remains a central meaning of beauty which never vanishes and that is why truth and beauty are linked and are ultimately the same.
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Would nature favour beauty? If so, can we define it?

Post by popeye1945 »

Yes. Keats wrote "Beauty is truth and truth beauty--- that is all you know on Earth and all you need to know." All beautiful things eventually die or otherwise vanish. But when the beautiful form has gone there remains a central meaning of beauty which never vanishes and that is why truth and beauty are linked and are ultimately the same.
[/quote]

Belinda,

Keats takes a bit of poetic license here no? Perhaps I am missing something. Is the meaning inferring that the concept lives on in species, thus has relative immortality? Truth is being and being is beautiful?
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Would nature favour beauty? If so, can we define it?

Post by Belinda »

popeye1945 wrote: Tue Feb 15, 2022 5:26 pm Yes. Keats wrote "Beauty is truth and truth beauty--- that is all you know on Earth and all you need to know." All beautiful things eventually die or otherwise vanish. But when the beautiful form has gone there remains a central meaning of beauty which never vanishes and that is why truth and beauty are linked and are ultimately the same.
Belinda,

Keats takes a bit of poetic license here no? Perhaps I am missing something. Is the meaning inferring that the concept lives on in species, thus has relative immortality? Truth is being and being is beautiful?
[/quote]

Not being but values. Truth and beauty transcend the perishable entities in which truth and beauty temporarily reside. Truth and beauty are principles that some entities are true to. I have read of a mathematical work or an engineering work described as beautiful. I am neither mathematician nor engineer and I take that to mean the work is minimally elegant, and does economically what it's meant to do. That principle is also applied to human bodies notably by the sculptures of ancient Greece, and the renaissance of Greek art in early modern Europe.
Post Reply