I don't see how ... but fine. I should have known non-religious threads were impossible.
All girls are pretty. Some are prettier in broad day light where each strand of hair glows in the son. Others in the night, where her face isn't really visible at all.
>.< Oops. "strand of hair glows in the sun".
Hehe, thanks, Quantum! XD
And this is how....
I've actually been thinking a lot about why we see things as beautiful.
I mean, why does our breath catch in our throat when we set eyes on a big pile of rock (mountains) or splatterings of colour on a canvas (paintings)?
God has given us the ability to appreciate beauty.
God himself fashioned the tree, the flower, the sunset, the face of our loved ones, and as a Lover of Beauty Himself, we, made in His likeness, view these as beautiful.
That is objective beauty.
Subjective beauty is how we see God's Love revealed in nature.
"In the garden of Eden the existence of God was demonstrated in the objects of nature that surrounded them. Every tree of the garden spoke to them. The invisible things of God were clearly seen, being understood by the things which were made, even His eternal power and Godhead. . . .
The things of nature upon which we look today give us but a faint conception of Eden's beauty and glory; yet the natural world, with unmistakable voice, proclaims the glory of God. In the things of nature, marred as they are by the blight of sin, much that is beautiful remains. One omnipotent in power, great in goodness, in mercy, and love, has created the earth, and even in its blighted state it inculcates truths in regard to the skilful Master Artist.
In this book of nature opened to us—in the beautiful, scented flowers, with their varied and delicate coloring—God gives to us an unmistakable expression of His love. After the transgression of Adam, God might have destroyed every opening bud and blooming flower, or He might have taken away their fragrance, so grateful to the senses. In the earth, seared and marred by the curse, in the briers, the thistles, the thorns, the tares, we may read the law of condemnation; but in the delicate color and perfume of the flowers, we may learn that God still loves us, that His mercy is not wholly withdrawn from the earth."
[Ellen White, Review and Herald, Nov. 8, 1898]
I enjoy being in nature and I find it especially beautiful because it reminds me of God. This is subjective since it is based on my personal perspective.
There. And that's how you turn this discussion into a religious one. XD
God bless. ♥
Aaaannddddd, im out.
"All girls are beautiful. Just some are more beautiful in the dark than others." - Contemplator
Love that :D
If you take objective as empirical, then beauty is not an empirically testable phenomenon, of course. It is inherently subjective like Dynamo said.
So easy to bring God into this thread >:)
I'm gonna carry on and pretend that didn't happen :/
I do find it interesting that for a phenomenon that is so clearly personal and subjective, there are a whole lot of clear objective facts about beauty. Anyone can show that there's objective truth about beauty in some ways, so why not in others? Some aspects of beauty can be described objectively, and with neuroscience we know more and more about it all the time. How can anyone say with such certainty that we'll never be able to objectively understand it?
People will say "well, science can never explain beauty!" Well, I'll tell you what, we can do an experiment. You'll look at a set of beautiful paintings and your brain activity will be measured during that time. Then, you'll be put in front of a blank grey wall and those same areas of your brain will be stimulated, and under those circumstances we'll see how much you're willing to bet that the wall won't look pretty darn appealling to you.
I don't think beauty is dependant on the person. Is the unexplored depths of the ocean not beautiful? Well, if beauty is dependant on any person, then the unexplored parts of the ocean are not beautiful. But I disagree. The ocean, both known and unkown, is beautiful because beauty is not reliant on the human brain.
So, what is it reliant on, you ask? *cough* *cough* ummm, *cough* G *grunt* o *clears throat* d.
Beauty is not reliant on God, Contemplator.
Beauty is a human perception. The ocean is not beautiful without a conscious mind to see it as such.
Quantum: And a falling tree does not make a sound if nobody hears it. Its the same argument.
Dyanmo: Why not?
No. Its not. Or it is - depending on your definition of sound.
If you define sound as the vibration of air molecules then a falling tree with no one around does make a sound.
If sound is defined (like beauty should be) to be reliant on conscious detection then no it doesn't.
I dunno, some stuff's pretty, other stuff's not. Maybe objectively some things are beautiful and therefore most everyone sees them that way, however other things may seem beautiful to some people and not others because their beauty only exists in the persons' subjective reality. Alpha beta! XD That probably made no sense.
"And a falling tree does not make a sound if nobody hears it."
You're right, it doesn't. If nothing (including animals, humans aren't the only ears around) is there to hear it, it makes no sound, only meaningless vibrations in the air.
When you say that the unexplored depths of the ocean are beautiful, you don't really mean that. Perhaps you mean that you expect they will be once they are explored. Perhaps you mean that what you imagine they are like is beautiful. Perhaps you mean that the feeling of mystery that you are filled with when you think of them is beautiful. But you have no way of knowing if those unexplored depths really are beautiful -- you haven't seen them, after all.
I don't have to see it to know its beautiful. I just know it is, and I'm sure it really is!! But, I do know its beautiful whether anyone will ever see the unseeable or not. And I don't have to see something just to think its beautiful.
" I just know it is, and I'm sure it really is!!"
And this is why you're relgious and I'm not. That statement makes no sense to me.
"I don't have to see it to know its beautiful."
If when we explore the currently unexplored depths of the ocean, they turn out to be ugly, what would you say?
You've provided no justification for this statement other than "I just know it is." The strongest statement you could reasonably make on that kind of basis is one beginning with "I feel that..."
Contemplator: Beauty is not directly reliant on God in a sense I think you might find complicated. :P But take this-- in a conceptual universe where deism is the key, beauty can exist without a sentient creator. I do not promulgate that, but it's just an independent thought :P
stunddude: As I've said before, beauty is not reliant on what I think!!! So, even if I think it is ugly, it isn't.
Dynamo: Can you, or do you want to explain more?
The Martyr's Song by Ted Dekker is a great novel about beauty. Its an easy read and really short. And, it made me rethink my veiws of beauty. I used to think beauty to be subjective, but not any more.
"So, even if I think it is ugly, it isn't."
Then how do you know that it is beautiful? What criteria does it follow?