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.