[Fred]

” Beauty is not merely a subjective perception, but an objective quality
that is grounded in reality and is not dependent on human opinion or
cultural constructs.”

What makes you think beauty is an objective quality?

[Lelouch]

The concept of beauty as an objective quality is a longstanding and widely accepted philosophical notion, supported by a wealth of evidence from various fields of study.

First, there is a cross-cultural and historical consensus on certain aesthetic ideals and standards of beauty, which suggests that there is something objective about our perception of beauty. For example, many cultures throughout history have valued symmetry, proportion, and balance in visual art and architecture, which are not arbitrary cultural preferences but are based on principles of visual harmony that are universally recognized and appreciated.

Furthermore, studies in neuroscience and psychology have shown that our perception of beauty is not purely subjective. For instance, research has demonstrated that certain facial features and body proportions are universally perceived as attractive, indicating that our sense of beauty is innate and objective.

Moreover, the existence of objective beauty is supported by the fact that it is often connected to other objective qualities, such as health, fitness, and fertility. For example, in many species, including humans, physical traits that are associated with good health and reproductive fitness tend to be perceived as more beautiful. This suggests that our perception of beauty is not arbitrary but is rooted in objective qualities.

[jayceeii]

The argument is weak from a number of perspectives. While all agree there is beauty in the world, it can’t be said to have objective existence since it is a judgment by consciousness, therefore existing only in the minds who perceive it and call it beautiful.

Premise 2 falls wherever you find two disagreeing about what is beautiful, as they sometimes come to fisticuffs at art shows. Or how the audience may love what the critics panned at the box office. Or how one man’s Juliet, may seem dull to a different Romeo.

Saying that the natural world is subject to change and decay in no way rules it out as a source of beauty, only of eternal beauty. That’s the nature of all bodies, more beautiful while young than old. What gets old nature refreshes, from the limits of biochemistry.

A song of Ramakrishna states, “Dive deep, O mind, dive deep in the Ocean of God’s beauty.” I find only two places that I can dive, into nature itself, as on long bike rides, or into a certain personality that I found. The rest doesn’t seem to be very beautiful, to me.

[Lelouch]

You raise some valid points, but there are also some misunderstandings that need to be addressed.

1. The objection to Premise 1 is based on the claim that beauty is subjective and exists only in the minds of those who perceive it. However, this objection conflates the subjective experience of beauty with the objective existence of beauty. It is true that people may have different opinions about what is beautiful, but that does not mean that beauty itself is purely subjective. Rather, beauty can be understood as an objective quality that exists independently of human perception. This is supported by the fact that many features of the natural world, such as sunsets, mountains, and flowers, are widely recognized as beautiful across cultures and time periods.

2. The objection to Premise 2 is based on the observation that people may disagree about what is beautiful. However, this objection overlooks the fact that there can be objective criteria for beauty that are not reducible to individual opinions or cultural norms. For example, a well-crafted piece of music or literature may be objectively beautiful because of its harmony, symmetry, or complexity, regardless of whether people subjectively like it or not. Moreover, the fact that people may sometimes disagree about what is beautiful does not imply that beauty is entirely subjective. Disagreements can arise because people have different levels of exposure, education, or taste, or because they are influenced by personal biases or interests.

3. The objection to Premise 4 is based on the claim that the natural world can be a source of beauty, even if it is subject to change and decay. While it is true that the natural world can be a source of beauty, the argument is concerned with the ultimate source of objective beauty. The objection does not address the point that the natural world, as a contingent and finite entity, cannot be the ultimate source of objective beauty, since it is subject to change, decay, and impermanence.

4. The objection to the conclusion is based on the claim that there are other sources of beauty besides God, such as nature and personal relationships. However, this objection misses the point that the argument is not concerned with the existence of beauty per se, but with the ultimate source or standard of objective beauty. While nature and personal relationships can be sources of subjective beauty, they cannot be the ultimate source of objective beauty, since they are themselves contingent and finite entities. Only a transcendent and infinite source, such as God, can provide the necessary basis and standard for objective beauty.

[jayceeii]

LL: 1. The objection to Premise 1 is based on the claim that beauty is subjective and exists only in the minds of those who perceive it. However, this objection conflates the subjective experience of beauty with the objective existence of beauty. It is true that people may have different opinions about what is beautiful, but that does not mean that beauty itself is purely subjective. Rather, beauty can be understood as an objective quality that exists independently of human perception. This is supported by the fact that many features of the natural world, such as sunsets, mountains, and flowers, are widely recognized as beautiful across cultures and time periods.

JC: The world did know it was beautiful until the human body appeared to appreciate it. Then it could be argued the processes of evolution naturally give a beautiful product, also that we are interpreting the familiar as beautiful. Don’t try to talk to a cow about its beauty, for instance. You’ll only get a moo in response.

LL: 2. The objection to Premise 2 is based on the observation that people may disagree about what is beautiful. However, this objection overlooks the fact that there can be objective criteria for beauty that are not reducible to individual opinions or cultural norms. For example, a well-crafted piece of music or literature may be objectively beautiful because of its harmony, symmetry, or complexity, regardless of whether people subjectively like it or not. Moreover, the fact that people may sometimes disagree about what is beautiful does not imply that beauty is entirely subjective. Disagreements can arise because people have different levels of exposure, education, or taste, or because they are influenced by personal biases or interests.

JC: You are citing mere order as beauty. Again, natural processes may be inherently beautiful unless you can show otherwise. If you want to bring God into it you’d need to show randomness would give rise to what is ugly. I believe that is possible, but not with today’s science.

LL: 3. The objection to Premise 4 is based on the claim that the natural world can be a source of beauty, even if it is subject to change and decay. While it is true that the natural world can be a source of beauty, the argument is concerned with the ultimate source of objective beauty. The objection does not address the point that the natural world, as a contingent and finite entity, cannot be the ultimate source of objective beauty, since it is subject to change, decay, and impermanence.

JC: You are again using a standard of eternal beauty against an ephemeral world. Evolutionary theory suggests random processes which succeed and are not canceled out by failing to reproduce, have given us this world. For all you know these successes might be naturally beautiful, or the people arising by these process may say they are beautiful because of familiarity. The “ultimate source of objective beauty,” in a materialistic view, is inherent to the process itself, which is naturally refreshed in the progeny.

LL: 4. The objection to the conclusion is based on the claim that there are other sources of beauty besides God, such as nature and personal relationships. However, this objection misses the point that the argument is not concerned with the existence of beauty per se, but with the ultimate source or standard of objective beauty. While nature and personal relationships can be sources of subjective beauty, they cannot be the ultimate source of objective beauty, since they are themselves contingent and finite entities. Only a transcendent and infinite source, such as God, can provide the necessary basis and standard for objective beauty.

JC: “Ultimate” is but poorly defined here, and looks like wishful thinking, as in “I feel there has to be someone behind all of this, but I can’t say what it is.” Christians looking at sunsets say they feel awe over God’s handiwork, but it could also be material beings feeling some random effects supplied by evolution, gazing at other material products. You can’t connect mere beauty to God by insisting there must be something ultimate when the materialist theory offers a competing explanation that you can find no means of rejecting.

[Lelouch]

You state that the world did not know it was beautiful until the human body appeared to appreciate it. While it is true that beauty as a concept is a human construct, the argument for the existence of objective beauty does not rely on the recognition of beauty by humans. Objective beauty is a quality that exists in the world independently of human perception, and this is supported by the fact that many non-human animals also exhibit preferences for certain visual stimuli, such as flowers or brightly colored objects.

You suggest that the processes of evolution may naturally give rise to beauty. While it is true that evolutionary processes can lead to the development of certain traits that we find beautiful, such as brightly colored plumage in birds, this does not explain the existence of objective beauty as a quality that is grounded in reality and is not dependent on human opinion or cultural constructs. Objective qualities, by definition, exist independently of human perception, and therefore cannot be explained solely by evolutionary processes.

You suggest that the standard of eternal beauty is being used against an ephemeral world. However, the argument for the existence of a supernatural source of objective beauty does not rely on the idea of eternal beauty. Rather, it is based on the logical inference that if there is an objective quality that is not reducible to human perception or cultural norms, then there must be a source or standard for that quality. And if that source or standard cannot be found in the natural world, then it must be supernatural in nature.

You suggest that the materialist theory offers a competing explanation for the existence of beauty that cannot be rejected. However, the materialist theory does not offer a satisfactory explanation for the existence of objective beauty as a quality that is grounded in reality and is not dependent on human perception or cultural constructs. The materialist theory can only explain the perception of beauty by humans, but it cannot explain the existence of beauty as an objective quality.

So while evolutionary processes can lead to the development of certain traits that we find beautiful, this does not explain the existence of objective beauty as a quality that is grounded in reality and is not dependent on human opinion or cultural constructs.

[Johan]

I completely reject (2). Beauty is absolutely subjective (it is in the eye of the beholder)

[Lelouch]

The argument that beauty is purely subjective and dependent on individual perception is a common view, but it is not necessarily accurate or complete.

Here are some counterarguments that support premise (2):

1. Objective beauty is not merely a matter of personal preference or taste: While people’s preferences for beauty may differ, there are certain aspects of beauty that are universally recognized across cultures and time periods. For example, most people find natural landscapes, like mountains and oceans, to be beautiful. Similarly, certain features of the human face, such as symmetry and proportion, are often considered beautiful across different cultures. These universal elements of beauty suggest that it has an objective quality that goes beyond individual preference.

2. Beauty is grounded in reality: Beauty is not just a figment of our imagination or a subjective feeling. For example, the beauty of a sunset is not just a projection of our minds, but it is a quality that exists in the real world and can be objectively observed and measured.

3. Beauty can be evaluated by objective criteria: While individual preferences play a role in our perception of beauty, we can also evaluate beauty based on objective criteria. For example, we can evaluate the beauty of a painting based on its composition, use of color, and other objective factors. Similarly, we can evaluate the beauty of a building based on its design, proportion, and functionality. These objective criteria suggest that beauty has an objective quality that is not reducible to individual perception or cultural norms.

[Johan]

“there are certain aspects of beauty that are universally recognized across cultures and time periods.”

This is simply false. Your example about natural landscapes isn’t true. I’ve known people who don’t find natural landscapes to be beautiful. The same thing can be said about the human face. While there may be consistency, and likely a consensus, that does not imply universality.

For your second point, you are not actually providing a rebuttal, but merely stating that you think it is wrong. You think it is wrong, I think it is right, how do we get past this stalemate?

Yes, you can evaluate things based on objective criteria, but then are you actually evaluating the subjective experience of beauty, or are you simply evaluating the things that you subjectively decided count as “beautiful”. Either way, you are subjective, not objective. Even in the things you listed, they are not universal. To some cultures fat people are beautiful, to others they are not. Which evaluations are objective?

[Lelouch]

While it is true that not all people find the same things beautiful, there are certain aspects of beauty that are recognized across cultures and time periods. For example, research has shown that humans have a preference for certain facial features, such as symmetry and clear skin, regardless of cultural background (Rhodes, 2006). Similarly, studies have found that people find landscapes with features like water and vegetation more attractive than barren landscapes, regardless of cultural background (Vartanian et al., 2013).

Furthermore, your objection confuses the subjective experience of beauty with the objective existence of beauty. It is true that individuals may have different subjective experiences of beauty, but that does not mean that beauty is subjective. The claim that beauty is an objective quality suggests that it has an existence beyond individual subjective experiences. Even if individual subjective experiences of beauty differ, the underlying objective quality of beauty remains the same.

As for the objection that evaluations of beauty are inherently subjective, it is important to distinguish between subjective criteria and objective criteria. While it is true that some criteria for evaluating beauty may be subjective (e.g. personal preference), there are also objective criteria that can be used to evaluate beauty, such as symmetry, proportion, and color harmony. These objective criteria are not based on personal preference, but on principles of aesthetics that have been discovered over time and are widely recognized.

So While there may be differences in individual subjective experiences of beauty, there are also objective criteria that can be used to evaluate beauty, and certain aspects of beauty are recognized across cultures and time periods.

References:

Rhodes, G. (2006). The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 199-226.

Vartanian, O., Navarrete, G., Chatterjee, A., Fich, L. B., & Leder, H. (2013). Psychologically mediated effects of natural beauty on healthy behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 33, 159-167.

[Johan]

” Even if individual subjective experiences of beauty differ, the underlying objective quality of beauty remains the same.”

You seem to be saying “Even if I find it disgusting, it is still beautiful regardless of how I view it”. No. You may as well be saying that even though I find the taste of Brussel sprouts to be disgusting, they are objectively tasty. It doesn’t work like that.

Symmetry is an objective criterial to measure by, but the subjective part is including symmetry within your definition of beauty. Yes, there are some principles of aesthetics that are generally excepted, but a consensus of something subjective does not make that thing objective, nor universal. Even if literally everyone on earth concluded that strawberries were delicious, that does not make strawberries objectively delicious.

[Lelouch]

While individual subjective experiences of beauty may differ, the underlying objective quality of beauty remains the same. This means that there is a shared aspect of beauty that is not dependent on individual subjective opinions or cultural norms.

For example, the taste of Brussel sprouts is a subjective experience because it depends on individual preferences and cultural norms. However, beauty is an objective quality because it is grounded in reality and is not dependent on individual preferences or cultural constructs.

Symmetry is indeed an objective criterion to measure by, but it is not the only objective criterion for beauty. There are other objective qualities in nature that are universally recognized as beautiful, such as the golden ratio, fractals, and patterns found in nature. These qualities are not dependent on individual preferences or cultural norms, but are objective features.

Your objection also confuses consensus with objectivity. While consensus may not make something objectively true, it is possible for there to be objective qualities that are universally recognized and agreed upon. For example, the laws of physics are objective truths that are universally recognized and agreed upon by scientists, regardless of individual opinions or cultural norms.

[Johan]

The underlying objective quality of beauty only remains the same if you maintain the same subjective definition of that quality. If you define beauty as being symmetrical, then you can objectively measure beauty by measuring symmetry. The definition of beauty is still subjective, but you can now make objective assessments based off that subjective standard. (this is the same way that many people look at morality).

There is no need to invoke God to explain this subjective standard that we created though, because, by definition, we created it.

“While consensus may not make something objectively true, it is possible for there to be objective qualities that are universally recognized and agreed upon.” Yes, it is possible that a consensus was gained because something was actually universally true, but that doesn’t mean that it must be that way. You have to demonstrate that it is actually universally true. I don’t think this is possible to do though because it is already demonstrated that it is not universally true. The mere existence of outliers proves that it is not a universal. A single counter example proves that the rule is not universal.

The laws of physics are observations of reality, they do not require any universal acceptance of them for there to be truth in them. You can derive them independently from people through observations about reality, can you do the same with beauty? Only if you first subjectively assign characteristics to beauty.

I think it would be really strange to tell some “it doesn’t matter what you think, X is beautiful”, it is no different to me than to tell someone “It doesn’t matter if you like pizza or not, it is objectively delicious”.

[Jabberwock]

‘Beauty is objective, because most people perceive some things as beautiful’ is self-refuting, as it relies o a subjective support for the supposedly objective feature. You try to work around it by pointing out that beauty may be linked with some objective qualities, but this actually works against the argument, as this is exactly how subjective perception works in other cases. Most, possibly all people would feel cold if they were naked at the South Pole – but the feeling of coldness is still subjective, just linked to the objective property of temperature. It is not objectively cold at the South Pole. Similarly, most people might perceive an object as red – but redness is subjective experience linked to specific physical phenomena.